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
