Yes. In fact I just want avoid usage of general Association in that places. So the question do we need two classes for instance and class side bindings? Or single ClassBinding is enough? In that case class side binding will have nil as a key (which would be the same for possible ClassSideBinding)
2017-09-13 9:43 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com>: > 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. > >
