Ok I checked the code and there is no magical invocation involved so this looks ok. I'm just a bit pissed off that nothing is that transparent and learning everything while porting it is terrible for me.
stef
On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Slot is not meta-level. It's just an implementation of Slots at Smalltalk level.
For example, in FAMIXClass>>initialize you get:
methods := FMManySlot new owner: self; oppInstVar: #parentClass; yourself.
Which will take care to populate the parentClass instance variable when you add a method. In any case, you can just treat it as a collection and everything should work just fine.
Perhaps, this is not necessarily needed, but I would say we could give it a try.
Slots are not Fame specific. They just happen to be packaged in Fame. But as Moose already depends on Fame, I think this dependency is not really a problem.
Doru
On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Indeed, Slots are implemented in Fame, and the CodeGenerator uses that instead of direct references or collections. That is why FAMIX uses Slots.
But a Slot is at the metalevel? Does it generate code at the FAMIX class implementation level?
Why cant we simply generate the code and get done? Why do we want to have to have such dependency with Fame? Stef _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Every thing has its own flow."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev