A fully late bound namespace proposal

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 10:01:25 UTC 2007


I saw, there are already present an implementation of PICs for squeak,
made available for use with bytecoded methods with slightly changing
the method message lookup and activating sequence.
Why its still not used/adopted by squeak (i suppose i missed
discussion about this)?

On 05/10/2007, David P Harris <dpharris at telus.net> wrote:
> Jason Johnson wrote:
> >> Well, I would actually consider going in the OPPOSITE direction inspired
> >> by Dan etc. Why not just go *fully late bound*? It would solve lots of
> >> problems - like dynamic remapping of spaces without any recompilation
> >> needed.
> >>
> >
> > Because of the speed concerns, and it may not (probably isn't) always
> > be needed.  My idea here was just implement it purely late bound with
> > no option for compile time binding, and just use macros (which I want
> > anyway) to implement early binding.
> >
> But I have always been impressed with Self's philosophy: design it the
> right way, and let the implementation find the fast way to do it, behind
> the scenes.  So, I think late-binding is the right way to specify this
> stuff.  The implementors need to solve the speed problem.   (easy for me
> to say ;-) )
>
> David
>
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list