🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6192@pdn.paradyne.com>, alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) writes:
> 4) If messages were first class values, then one could write code such as
>    the following:
> 
>      | aMessage aPoint |
>      aMessage <- Message for: (x: 0 y: 0).
>      aPoint <- Point aMessage.
> 
>    The problem with the above is syntactical:  how can the compiler tell
>    that "Point aMessage" means "send the message 'x: 0 y: 0' to Point" 
>    and not "send the message 'aMessage' to Point"?  There are only two
>    solutions to this problem.  Smalltalk uses one of them:  the syntax for 
>    sending messages whose value is determined statically at compile time
>    and for sending messages whose value is determined dynamically at run
>    time is completely different.  

>    So the other (better) solution to the problem is to create OOPLs whose
>    syntax for sending statically and dynamically determined message values
>    is identical.

In the above example "aMessage" is a temporary variable.  The compiler will
generate code to send the contents of the "aMessage" temp as a message to
"Point".  When the interpreter looks up the message in the methods of 
"Point" perhaps it should recognize that the message being passed is itself
a message - in other words do the "perform:with:" inherently in the 
interpreter, and leave the compiler alone.  

i
n
e
w
s

f
o
d
d
e
r
-- 
Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large
Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w).
Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace...       +1 713 568 3460 (h).