[Posible SPAM] Re: [self-interest] Public and private visibility in Self

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at merlintec.com
Fri Jan 11 18:40:23 UTC 2008

J. Baltasar wrote:
> 	Thank you or your answer, Jecel. Please excuse me, my SPAM-filter had
> buried this message for long time.

Then I won't remove the filter's comment from the subject. I don't know
if that will help or make things worse.

> 	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?

The people who actually made the changes for Self 3.0 would have to
comment on this.

> > 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.

No technical problems, but there were some issues about how this should
work in practice. 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.

-- Jecel

More information about the Self-interest mailing list