Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
> 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).

Use trees :-) Trees are so cool for that kind of things. And they are 
already used for refactoring or pretty printing.