At the minimum having classBinding instead of GlobalBinding would be already a good step. Then since the metaclass and the class are a real couple could we not have an object shared by both (but it would cost one indirection).
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know... I found the idea of having a Metaclass binding strange... > > I mean, > - metaclasses are not stored in any name dictionary such as Smalltalk > - nobody references them directly in source code but by their direct classes > > The metaclass binding is there just for one thing really: methods need an > association to know their class in case they have to do a super send. And > transitively this is a compiler problem also. But anybody else accesses > metaclasses' bindings.
