On Saturday 03 July 2004 4:14 pm, Craig Latta wrote:
>         This problem seems unsolvable in general (at least, without perfect
> type inference, which I am not interested in pursuing). Left unchecked,
> it could yield highly subtle errors, and so renders any session
> untrustable. So, I've changed my approach to an even more brute-force
> one. I'm running the kitchen-sink snapshot in the simulator, and
> reporting every simulated send, after the entry point, to another copy
> of the kitchen-sink snapshot which is running normally. That snapshot,
> in turn, will make sure that the involved method is installed in the
> minimal snapshot.
>
>         I appreciate any suggestions or comments. Well, apart from "this is
> all nuts"; I've already thought of that one. :)

Why don't you just send over a catalog of the class contents when you send 
over the first method for it?

That way you can populate the method dictionary with stubs that will 
understand that they need to replace themselves.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com/squeak/