If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote: > It's possible to just go ahead and do it *all* at runtime, and have > no compile time component at all--just a series of "newclass, > addparent, addattribute" ops, assuming those are the op names we go > with. Classes just get created at code initialization time or > something.
That would be cool .. a lot easier to debug this kind of thing , especially when you could dump it as imcc and have it constant evaluated as a bytecode segment (wishful thinking ;) Question #1 : Are classes allowed to have fields ? Question #2 : Visibility ? Question #3 : Static methods ? Question #4 : Static constructors ? Question #5 : Destructor semantics .. Questions #3 & #4 can be emulated and #2 is only optional but #1 & #5 are of concern .. > instantiate a new class you need a chunk of bytecode around. It's > possible that at least some of this is only doable with metadata in > bytecode, but the bytecode metadata segments can be easily created on > the fly. Hmm... like compile some imcc on the fly ? > Anyone got any feelings or opinions on this, besides "Why yes, I want > an object system"? :) Class-based info I may be missing would also be > welcome. "Why who wouldn't ?" How would the override of a method happen ? ... would it be purely by name or would you provide some way to force a method to override another of a different name ? .. Ie add a method forcibly over an occupied slot ?. Gopal -- The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success
