hi frank
> I mused with a colleague about how I'd like to see "lexically scoped
> monkey patching", and he pointed me to some guys that want to add that
> to Ruby (http://timelessrepo.com/refinements-in-ruby). Note the
> inspiration for their work: ClassBoxes!
> (http://scg.unibe.ch/research/classboxes)
do you know the difference between refinements and classboxes?
>
> I remember reading the paper years ago, and started working through it
> again now. Something that's not clear to me is this: does ClassBoxes
> require VM-side changes?
no
> (Because it changes the method lookup, after
> all, searching packages for methods before working up the inheritance
> tree.) If so, how invasive are they? If not, do we have a ball-park
> estimate of how much work it would be to update ClassBoxes to a more
> recent Squeak/Pharo?
In the implementation of alex it was mainly a couple of classes generating
special byte codes.
(in fact at the beginning he got a different vms and after he did not needed
it).
Now I would really like to see if we do not prefer to have selector namespaces
= each symbol is prefixed with the namespace it is compiled in.
> I'm more than happy to do the dogwork. I'd just like to know whether
> I'm signing up for months of work or not.
No ask alex for the code it was really simple.
Now the fact that an expression was different when executed a different class
boxes made me uncomfortable.
I would love to have a real case study showing the advantage
because we have
extesnions:
adding method
overriding methods.
then what is the visibility of the extension
- global
- local = selector namespace
- classboxes
> Thanks!
>
> frank
>
