Self-interest January 2008

self-interest@lists.selflanguage.org

2 participants
2 discussions

Re: [Posible SPAM] Re: [self-interest] Public and private visibility in Self
by J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

Hi ! Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had buried this message for long time. I understand that the tie-breaker rule was abandoned because of that complexity (it wasn't obvious which slot was to be called), but still don't see the point for privacity. Is the only problem that it was included in the pack with the multiple inheritance feature and the tie-breaker rule? > One alternative would have been to remove some of > these while leaving some others (like privacy, for example) in, So I suppose that privacy, by itself, was not a problem. > but it > was fealt that this was the wrong direction in general and that it was > better to leave them all out until a proper solution could be found. I see. > One experiment in this area was an extension of Self called "Us". I'll study that language. Thank you again ! Salud ! Baltasar -- PBC -- J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield jbgarcia en uvigo de es http://webs.uvigo.es/jbgarcia/ Dep. Informática, Universidad de Vigo, España (Spain)

2 1

Re: [self-interest] Public and private visibility in Self
by J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

Dear Jecel: > Then I won't remove the filter's comment from the subject. I don't know > if that will help or make things worse. Yes, that's true ;-). Thank you. > The people who actually made the changes for Self 3.0 would have to > comment on this. Yep, that would be fantastic. > Normal sends didn't see private slots but self sends > did, even if these slots were inherited. And any object could change > itself to inherit from you at runtime, so it would have full access to > all of your slots no matter what their privacy declarations were. It was > felt that something better would have to be developed. That was the explanation I was exactly looking for. Thank you very much. My motivation about all of this was to decide if it could be any problem about the privacy feature of my own project, Zero: http://trevinca.ei.uvigo.es/~jgarcia/TO/zero/ Provided Zero does only support simple inheritance, and that it doesn't show thta problems, I assume I'm safe. Salud ! Baltasar -- PBC -- J. Baltasar García Perez-Schofield jbgarcia en uvigo de es http://webs.uvigo.es/jbgarcia/ Dep. Informática, Universidad de Vigo, España (Spain)

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

Self-interest January 2008