Closure/method discrepancy...

[victor_yurkovsky]

Thanks for all the insights.  I have to seriously think about it and 
try out a few things in Mr. Gliebe's port (Thank you!!!) so I don't 
sound like a complete fool (too late).

By the way, what I meant by compile-time binding of objects in 
Smalltalk is that objects that receive messages are either explicitly 
returned from somewhere (this part is dynamic, of course) or are 
statically bound to a named instance (or class) variable or a pool.  
I think I was suggesting an extra object lookup (conceptually anyway 
as it can be optimized out) if an object is referred to by name, 
which I realize self in fact does by searching the slot hierarchy.  
The litmus test for me is whether it's possible at runtime to modify 
the object's inheritance path and have it function correctly in the 
new environment (that is, have the messages sent to the newly-bound 
objects if necessary).

Thanks for hammering the cloning thing into me, it does  make a 
difference.

What was I talking about anyway?  I do suffer from CRS (Can't 
Remember S**t)