Copying methods is probably the right way to do regarding literals and properties. A comparison of the bytecodes may solve this issue although. I added an issue, #725. I will fix it soon.
Cheers, Alexandre On 10 Apr 2009, at 14:32, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > Yes, this should not be a conflict. I think I had implemented it that > way. Probably it was broken in the recent refactoring that I did for > method sharing... > > Adrian > > On Apr 10, 2009, at 13:47 , Alexandre Bergel wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Apparently, the way a conflict may be triggered is slightly different >> from what is described in the toplas paper. >> in the paper, it is said that a compiled method that is inherited >> from >> more than one path does not trigger a conflict. With the current >> implementation this trigger a conflict. >> >> For example: >> T1 defines foo >> T2 uses T1 >> T3 uses T1 >> T23 uses T2 + T3 >> C uses T23 >> >> C new foo => conflict error. >> >> One would expect no conflict since there is only one definition of >> foo >> Just wondering... >> >> Alexandre >> >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
