Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Posible SPAM] Re: [self-interest] Public and private visibility in Self

Expand Messages
  • J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield
    Hi ! Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had buried this message for long time. I understand that the tie-breaker rule was
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi !

      Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had
      buried this message for long time.

      I understand that the tie-breaker rule was abandoned because of that
      complexity (it wasn't obvious which slot was to be called), but still
      don't see the point for privacity. Is the only problem that it was
      included in the pack with the multiple inheritance feature and the
      tie-breaker rule?

      > One alternative would have been to remove some of
      > these while leaving some others (like privacy, for example) in,

      So I suppose that privacy, by itself, was not a problem.

      > but it
      > was fealt that this was the wrong direction in general and that it was
      > better to leave them all out until a proper solution could be found.

      I see.

      > One experiment in this area was an extension of Self called "Us".

      I'll study that language. Thank you again !

      Salud !

      Baltasar

      --
      PBC -- J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield
      jbgarcia en uvigo de es http://webs.uvigo.es/jbgarcia/
      Dep. Informática, Universidad de Vigo, España (Spain)
    • Jecel Assumpcao Jr
      ... Then I won t remove the filter s comment from the subject. I don t know if that will help or make things worse. ... The people who actually made the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        J. Baltasar wrote:
        > Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had
        > buried this message for long time.

        Then I won't remove the filter's comment from the subject. I don't know
        if that will help or make things worse.

        > I understand that the tie-breaker rule was abandoned because of that
        > complexity (it wasn't obvious which slot was to be called), but still
        > don't see the point for privacity. Is the only problem that it was
        > included in the pack with the multiple inheritance feature and the
        > tie-breaker rule?

        The people who actually made the changes for Self 3.0 would have to
        comment on this.

        > > One alternative would have been to remove some of
        > > these while leaving some others (like privacy, for example) in,
        >
        > So I suppose that privacy, by itself, was not a problem.

        No technical problems, but there were some issues about how this should
        work in practice. Normal sends didn't see private slots but self sends
        did, even if these slots were inherited. And any object could change
        itself to inherit from you at runtime, so it would have full access to
        all of your slots no matter what their privacy declarations were. It was
        felt that something better would have to be developed.

        -- Jecel
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.