[Self-interest] Block Question

[Steve Dekorte]

> On Nov 11, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
> 
> When compiling some code that include literal objects there is a slight
> complication in that, unlike Smalltalk-80, we don't have globals in
> Self. Most objects have either "traits clonable", "traits identity" or
> "traits oddball" as an ancestor and all of these inherity from
> "globals".
> 
> But if we create an object like ( | a <- 3. b = 4 | ) it won't know any
> globals. Passing it a message asking for "traits color" will fail, while
> in Smalltalk all code can access the global Color. This is normally a
> good thing which allows us to implement the POLA (principle of least
> authority) security style in our code if we want

Do the number objects for “3” and “4" or symbol objects for  “a” and “b” have refs to those traits ancestors by which introspective code in the object could potentially find its way to access globals?