Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> I thought you might say that, but there's really no reason why you >> should insist on defining class instance variables in the class method >> scope. > > I fail to parse this, sorry. In fact, the bang syntax for class > instance variables is > > Foo class > instanceVariableNames: 'uniqueInstance'! > > which is "defined on the class" just like class methods. > > In fact, the 1:1 mapping is *not* between instance and class variables, > but within instance and class-instance variables.
I don't mind if you don't quote me in full, but chopping paragraphs in half is bound to lead to confusion. What I said was that you don't have to follow that mapping, because the instance scope is not the same kind of scope as the class scope. To put it another way: you are creating this new syntax. The only rules that it has to follow are chosen by you. There are no external constraints. There is no need to conform to a particular pattern if it makes for a less useful syntax. Mike _______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
