In the VM primitiveSlotAt: / at:Put: mean access to any field (pointer or
non pointer, sorry for the confusion Marcus earlier on) of an object. The
primitive in the image can be named fieldAt:/fieldAt:put: if it makes more
sense for Pharo.
#[0] slotAt: 1 => 0
#(#a) slotAt: 1 => #a
0@2 slotAt: 1 => 0
With Pharo 6 blocks:
| t | t := #tmp. {[ t ] slotAt: 3 . [ t ] slotAt: 4} => { 0 "numArgs". #tmp
}
Right now you can do that with instVarAt: on the contrary to what
instVarAt: comment states, and this is wrong.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:21, Clément Bera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.
> com> wrote:
>
>> Did you talk with marcus?
>>
>
> I don't understand the connection between slots and this problem with
> primitives.
>
>>
>>
> There is no connection, just the same name.
>
> For Slots aka First Class Instance variables:
>
> I sometimes think that Slot for the first class instance variables might
> not be a good name, but then,
> the only alternative would be “instance variable”, but that is not that
> nice either, as these Slots include
> virtual variables (that are computed) or variables that are combine stored
> in a hidden base slot (e.g.
> used for BooleanSlot or PropertySlot).
>
> So for now I will keep the Slot term…
>
>
> Marcus
>
--
Clément Béra
Pharo consortium engineer
https://clementbera.wordpress.com/
Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
