[Self-interest] argument parents (was: general ifTrue)

[David Ungar]

Yes, after swimming in Swift, I agree. Immutable slots, set at creation time, are worth the additional language complexity. 
(If/when I ever get back to playing with languages, though, I think that Korz holds the most promise.)
in Self-like terms, maybe a copy primitive that rips out selected assignment slots?
Or a special nil that can only be overwritten once?
Hmm... I'd want to pull in some of Steimann's ideas, he gets rid of nil by unifying across counts.

Maybe after I retire...


- Dave

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:09 AM, kjx <kjx at ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
> for what it's worth, I now thing this is one of the inherent weaknesses
> of the Self model - not just for arguments, but even for any constant slot:
> there's no good way to make "per-instance" constant slots.
> 
> Consider points - Self points are logically immutable, 
> but they have to be declared with mutable slots. 
> 
> This is why Grace ended up going with Emerald style object creation expressions
> (which are pretty much anonymous classes) rather than cloning prototypes.
> 
> I guess you could have slots with semantics where
> - cloning the object automatically uninitialises them in the clone,
> - once assigned/initialised they cannot be re-initialised.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / God Yul / Happy New Year / etc everyone - James
> 
>> On 17/12/2021, at 6:54AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I noticed that I did not actually ever change a parent after I had
>> cloned an object. Perhaps that use case would be better expressed as
>> setting a value of an argument once and for all, like in theory :self*
>> is set when the activation is created?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Self-interest mailing list
> Self-interest at lists.selflanguage.org
> http://lists.selflanguage.org/mailman/listinfo/self-interest