privacy (was: simplicity)

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at
Mon Jun 28 19:09:30 UTC 2004

On Sunday 27 June 2004 12:57, Ian Woollard wrote:
> I think Self is guilty of oversimplification:
> a) no privacy/security

Actually, Self 1.0 did implement privacy. Every slot could be declared 
as public or private. Children could still access the private slots in 
their parents, so it wasn't quite what you were asking for in another 

Another feature was parent priorities. You could mark some parents to be 
searched only when a selector was not found in higher priority ones. 
This combined with privacy to make it easy to create very confusing 
code. So in Self 3.0 these features were eliminated with the idea that 
privacy would be added back when a better solution could be found. The 
Us perspective thing was one exploration of a possible better solution.

For backwards compatibility, the privacy syntax is still accepted - it 
just is ignored by the virtual machine. You also have privacy 
annotations which have an effect on the GUI (the outliners show public 
slots on top and in bold face).

-- Jecel

More information about the Self-interest mailing list