> On 12 Sep 2017, at 17:33, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't know... I found the idea of having a Metaclass binding strange...
>
> I mean,
> - metaclasses are not stored in any name dictionary such as Smalltalk
> - nobody references them directly in source code but by their direct classes
>
> The metaclass binding is there just for one thing really: methods need an
> association to know their class in case they have to do a super send. And
> transitively this is a compiler problem also. But anybody else accesses
> metaclasses' bindings.
>
yes, we need it just for the last literal.
We added the “if there is a method, get the binding from there” we adde as else
we would compiler every class side method with a new Association instance, which
wastes lots of space.
Marcus
