On Apr 22, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm taking a look at the AST annotation in
>
> RBProgramNode>>annotateInClass: aBehavior
> self annotateInScope: (RBVariableScope
> owner: (RBLiteralScope
> owner: RBRootScope new
> class: aBehavior)
> class: aBehavior)
>
> With that code, the order in which variables are annotated is
>
> 1) inst vars
> 2) literal vars (class vars, pools, globals in the environment)
> 3) the root scope -> pseudo-vars (self, super, thiscontext)
>
> Shouldn't the order be different? Something like:
>
> 1) pseudo-vars (self, super, thiscontext)
> 2) inst vars
> 3) literal vars (class vars, pools, globals in the environment)
>
> So there are never conflicts, and no other scope can bind pseudo-vars?
Hello,
For now Opal is not using the semantic analysis of AST-Semantics but instead
it's own.
(it is more low-level with escaping variables and things like that).
So the goal is to merge the two.
What I wanted to say: No idea. :-)
In Opal, self, super, thiscontex is in the Method Scope while self and super is
in the
Instance scope.
So the lookup is
temps + thisContext
ivars + self + super
literal vars
Marcus
