yes, we need it just for the last literal.
> On 12 Sep 2017, at 17:33, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know... I found the idea of having a Metaclass binding strange...
>
> I mean,
> - metaclasses are not stored in any name dictionary such as Smalltalk
> - nobody references them directly in source code but by their direct classes
>
> The metaclass binding is there just for one thing really: methods need an association to know their class in case they have to do a super send. And transitively this is a compiler problem also. But anybody else accesses metaclasses' bindings.
> ���
We added the ���if there is a method, get the binding from there��� we adde as else
we would compiler every class side method with a new Association instance, which
wastes lots of space.
�� �� �� �� Marcus