On Nov 11, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Cees De Groot wrote:

> I had a funny problem with Seaside where a child component behaved in
> a funny way, which turned out to be caused by the ivar representing
> the child component not being present in the class.
>
> On investigation, it turns out that when the class is recompiled,
> methods that had e.g. a storeIntoRcvr: opcode to write the now-absent
> ivar get recompiled with a storeIntoLit: opcode.
>
> Shouldn't the compiler throw an error instead? This can result in very
> hard-to-track bugs...

Well, that would mean that you could never remove an ivar that was  
still referenced by a method. There's a certain security in that, I  
suppose, but personally, I'd rather the system didn't protect me from  
myself. The binding in the literal frame is also referenced by  
Undeclared, which makes it easier to find.

Colin