> On 05 May 2015, at 13:39, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>>
> yes, we could move it up to Association… but we should keep VariableBinding
> as a subclass of
> Literal so that people in the future e.g. can put a halt on a variable
> defined in the
> workspace.
>
> And yes, in general we need a nice API for the compiler to hand bindings to
> it… it is on my TODO
> list.
>
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15490/provide-a-way-to-specify-external-binding-to-the-compiler
>
> <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15490/provide-a-way-to-specify-external-binding-to-the-compiler>
>
>
> This Slice adds an API to the compiler to set a dictionary with bindings to
> be taken into account.
> They are compiled as pushLinteralVariable: (thus refer to the association of
> the dictionary)
>
> Smalltalk compiler
> bindings: { #a -> 3 } asDictionary;
> evaluate: '1+a’.
This is now in Pharo5 update #032
Marcus
