[Maybe Spam] Re: A strange Squeak bug

Tim Rowledge tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
Wed Feb 9 23:19:45 UTC 2005


"Frank Shearar" <Frank.Shearar at rnid.org.uk> wrote:

> Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote
> > 
> > Try
> > Smalltalk associations select:[:assn | assn class ~= 
> > ReadOnlyVariableBinding]
> > to see a list of the classes not protected. I find 671 in a 3.8-6527
> > image I've done a bit of fiddling in, along with 1128 that are
> > protected.
> 
> I see in my image that I've a large number of classes in my own packages that aren't protected.
> 
> Should we protect all these classes ourselves? Or are new classes automatically protected? How do we protect existing, unprotected classes?
Right now it appears the compiler doesn't protect newly compiled
classes. No callers for the methods LookupKey>beReadOnlyBinding (etc)
appear to exist.

I would say that whomsoever considers theirself to be in posession of
the compiler token might like to look at this. I'd certainly prefer to
see consistency - either all classes get to be protected or none. It's
so much easier to explain.


tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
One man's constant is another man's variable.  - Perlis



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list