On 18.07.2006, at 07:33, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Chris Muller wrote:
>> Hmm, well your good question sent me on a big chase that led me to
>> enlightenment, thank you.  The short answer is "no".  The long answer
>> follows.
>
> I'm actually slightly relieved because it means I didn't miss  
> anything stupidly simple ;-) I spent a *lot* of brainpower on this  
> problem in particular and I found it to be a really hard one.
>

The solution would be, of course, to not use offsets for instvar  
access in the bytecode... the binding name->offset happens far too  
early.

For everything but interpretation, bytecode sucks. Thus we should  
have a better representation for these kind of things and use bytecode
*only* for execution (if at all). Not as a meta model for methods,  
not for making code persistent and especially not for general code  
motion
in distributed systems. There are much better representations for  
that, see i.e. the research of Michael Franz (e.g. Slim Binaries an  
later SafeTSA).

      Marcus