Yes, I wondered why it was not done in semantic analysis… would be much easier.
The binding approach only takes care of reflective change (Smalltalk globals
at: Object put: nil),
a case that is not as important to fix. (reflection is dangerous, disallowing
just this one
operation does not help).
We should do some experiments.
Marcus
> On 08 Dec 2015, at 17:33, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I remember. But what I do not remember is if the compiler was aware of it.
>
> I remember you had these ReadOnlyVariable, subclass of association that
> redefined #value:. You were however still capable of doing:
>
> MyReadOnlyVar := 1.
>
>> On 8 dic 2015, at 5:29 p.m., Marcus Denker <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There used to be a mechanism for that (readonly variable bindings).
>>
>> It was there but not used: half the globals where readonly, all globals added
>> after the experiment was done where “normal”.
>>
>> With the new “first class” variables we could easily add that back in a
>> clean way.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>> On 08 Dec 2015, at 17:19, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Object := nil
>>>
>>> you can evaluate that piece of code, but afterwards ....
>>>
>>> Opal checks for assignments to read only variables (method arguments for
>>> example)
>>> and signals an error if you try to modify those vars.
>>> But it does not check globals.
>>>
>>> Should all Globals (OCLiteralVariable with isGlobalVar == true) be read
>>> only ?
>>> or can we distinguish global vars and class bindings?
>>>
>>
>
