Am 25.06.2014 um 16:55 schrieb Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com>:

2014-06-25 11:52 GMT-03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:

On 25 Jun 2014, at 11:49, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:

On 25 Jun 2014, at 16:43, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:

Slot
\SimpleSlot (current iv slot)

Yes, the naming of that one� I think we just need to take the freedom of iterating.
For now I called it �InstanceVariableSlot�, but that might be confusing and it is a long word.

but is less confusing than �SimpleSlot�, which basically says nothing, IMO

What about SimpleInstanceVariableSlot? (just kidding)

I don't like over descriptive class names. Because they restrict you
from using it for other, unexpected, purposes or contexts.

The question to me is why this is "over descriptive". We have a tradition here to be descriptive and intention revealing. It happens everywhere except when it comes to instance variables it is instVarAt: instVarNamed: etc. I never liked them.

Another question might be the usage context. Why is it called InstanceVariableSlot anyway? Is there a difference if the slot is attached to the instance side or class side? Isn't it really just a VariableSlot? The context for the instance is where it is used. Asking an object for instance variables and class instance variables could just return a collection of VariableSlots, no?