On Jun 1, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> It would be cool to have Classboxes back on track.
Now I would like to see a real system like seaside or moose (too complex
probably) build and used
before.
> The original version of Classbox requires a new method lookup. This can be
> achieved either by modifying the VM or wrapping the method to intercept a
> call (using method wrapper for example).
>
> Interesting variants of classboxes could be realized by:
> - having a lookup for classes: when you write "Morph new", then the name
> "Morph" is looked up, pretty much as methods are
> - having a class Selector that get evaluated into a symbol. You can then
> achieved selector namespaces, which does not incur a cost at execution.
what alex wants to say is that in S# dave simmons enhanced symbol
with === and
namespace.symbol equality was different than symbol equality
so it was easy to add selector namespace into the system by just
compiling symbol as namespace.symbol
so message sends where namespacified.
Namespac1
foo
self bar
=>
foo
self Namespac1
But selector namespaces as well as class boxes are not a panacea because you
always find strange beasts.
So I'm curious to see what ruby people took for the semantics because we worked
with alex 4 years on that and I was not satisfied.
Stef
>
> Cheers,
> Alexandre
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>> 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? (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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> frank
>>
>
> --
> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
