[FIX] ClassVarsFix-petervr (was:Sharedvariablesbinding/lookupbug)

Peter van Rooijen squeak at vanrooijen.com
Tue Oct 14 11:16:37 UTC 2003


From: <goran.krampe at bluefish.se>
> "Peter van Rooijen" <squeak at vanrooijen.com> wrote:
> > I want to get this bug in Squeaks shared
> > variable binding fixed. Tim can joke about it all he likes, I don't
mind. I
> > am squarely opposed, however, to not fixing a major bug because Tim has
> > never been bothered by the bug.
>
> Eh... now I think things are getting mixed up. I think I was the one
> talking about "not been bothered" by the bug. And that was only
> regarding doing a new release of 3.6. As I understand it Tim has never
> been opposed to fix the bug (or has he?).

I don't know what his position is. My position is clear: I believe it is a
bug, I want a fix incorporated in the disctibution, I have written a fix.

I am encouraged that you call it a 'bug' :-).

[snip]

> No, of course not. I was simply reacting on your rather strong words
> trying to get you guys to cool down. This list is a friendly list and we
> try hard to keep it that way.

I'm all with you.

> I was referring the the "Hail Alans" etc, not anything else.

Exactly. I thought those remarks at that moment were too strong for this
friendly list.

> And again
> you are assuming that Squeak is meant to be nothing more than a
> "Smalltalk".

I'm not making that assumption. In fact, I haven't stated my reasons for
wanting this behavior changed. Also, I don't remember anyone asking me why I
wanted it.

I believe I did make references to the Blue Book, to the ANSI Smalltalk
standard, and the behavior of several Smalltalk implementations, which have
the scope rules as I have proposed them to be changed for Squeak. If those
references support my case for the change I advocate, that would be very
useful.

Does that mean I am assuming that Squeak is meant to be no more than a
"Smalltalk"? Of course not.

I have no opinion on what Squeak is or is not 'meant to be'.

I do generally favor increasing compatibility between Smalltalk
implementations. This follows from my belief that the walls between dialects
are barriers that make for a weaker Smalltalk community, because it ends up
divided into subcommunities along dialect lines.

> I have posted on that issue. What I mean is that "correctly
> working" is clearly up for debate.

I don't disagree with you here. I could make an argument that there are very
good reasons for the scope rules as found in the Blue Book, the ANSI
standard, and other Smalltalk dialects. They are not desirable simply
because they are 'standard', they in fact have many desirable properties.

> > > Come on now guys, shake hands and let us continue. :-)
> >
> > If you want to continue, I suggest you test the fix and post your
findings.
>
> I have no idea what you are implying by this last sentence.

I don't know that I'm implying anything. If you want to move forward, I
suggested that a good way would be to test the fix I proposed and post your
findings.

Perhaps an implication, if you want to call it that, is that I believe it is
more useful to try out what I have proposed, instead of speculating what
terrible things could conceivably happen if it gets into the image.

> AFAICT there
> is an ongoing discussion and I am following it. And the day has not come
> yet when people can simply tell me what to do unless they pay me.
>
> regards, Göran

Regards,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list