🚀 go-pugleaf

Karen Jacqmin-Adams <kadams@froglit.scitele.com> wrote:
>
> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 15:44:42 GMT, shang@corp.mot.com (David
> > >>> L. Shang) said:
> 
> > David> therefore, "this" and "super" are different objects.
> > 
> > No, no, no, no. I read on page 37 of "A little Smalltalk", a slim
> > introductory level textbook by T. Budd:
> > 
> >   "Both the [pseudo] variables 'self' and 'super' refer to the
> >   receiver of the current message. When a message is passed to
> >   'self' the search for a method [ ... ] On the other hand, when a
> >   messag eis passed to 'super', the search begins with [ ... ]'
> > 
> > In other words, in Smalltalk 'self == super' is true by definition, and
> > it is only method lookup that differs. The different behaviour is
> > possible because the Smalltalk compiler understands 'self' and 'super'
> > to be pseudo-variables, and thus treats them specially.
> > 
> >...
> > 
> > BTW, you are the second person in a day to display a gross
> > misunderstanding of Smalltalk fundamentals -- and this is not by chance,
> > or your fault alone. One of the big problems with Smalltalk is the
> > extremely misleading termonology used therein, e.g. 'message' for
> > 'procedure' and 'sending' for 'calling'. As D. Hopwood reminded me once,
> > no amount of pithy verbiage will remedy conceptual pitfalls, but I can
> > try :-), even with languages where the terminology does mislead.
> 
> This seems to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for new Smalltalk 
> programmers.  It's well worth the extra time it takes to get it 
> straight!

Ditto.
Next, try yourself. Then a little of the latest deepCopy...trueCopy, et al!
TTFN!(GRRR)