On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>wrote:
> > 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 > I want it :) > > Marcus > > >
