Just because code definition happens as part of the runtime of the whole system does not mean that any piece of code does not have a code definition time during which one could arrange to, for example, do macro substitution.
On 7/20/07, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:57 , Marcin Tustin wrote: > On 7/20/07, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:31 , Marcin Tustin wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/20/07, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul > > 20, 2007, at 8:52 , Louis Moon wrote: > > > ...and yes, of course, there is a runtime. > > Well, you could say there is only runtime. Which makes the term > useless, as it implies some sort of opposite. > > Then how would you refer to runtime? In any case, we can oppose it > to code-definition time. Nothing exciting may happen then, but it's > worth being able to talk about it. There is no technical distinction. All you do when "defining code" is creating an instance and adding it to a dictionary in some object. That's no different from other activities you do at "runtime". The instance might be an instance of a metaclass and the dictionary might be held in a global variable called Smalltalk. Or the instance could happen to be a CompiledMethod instance, and the dictionary would be the method dictionary of a class object. So what? Sending messages, creating instances, storing them in fields of other objects, wouldn't you call that "runtime" if you insist on that term? - Bert - _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
