On 7 October 2011 08:42, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I do not understand why classVariables cannot shadow globals and take
>> precedence over them.
>> When I define a classVariable the resolution should take classVariable over
>> global.
>
> Any kind of shadowing is disallowed in Smalltalk.
>
> I think this is part of the language design is quite broken and a
> rather static approach that is very strange in a dynamic language like
> Smalltalk. Not even Java has these kind of static restrictions.
>
>> Now what will happen if I define classVariable with a name that is ok in my
>> current image but will be present
>> in the future in the image I will load my code!
>
> Yes, this is the current semantics. The possibility to shadow globals
> would be very useful to replace globals in the context of a class
> hierarchy. I suggested already many years ago to replace all shadowing
> errors on all levels (temps, arguments, inst vars, class vars, pool
> vars, globals) with compiler warnings.
I must be missing something. I thought Stéphane was talking about something like
Object subclass: #Foo
instanceVariableNames: ''
classVariableNames: 'OrderedCollection'
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'BalloonTests-Fills'
bar
OrderedCollection := Array.
(OrderedCollection with: 1) add: 1
but "Foo new bar" raises the expected "Error: This message is not
appropriate for this object".
What am I missing?
frank
> Lukas
>
> --
> Lukas Renggli
> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>
>
