In the VM primitiveSlotAt: / at:Put: mean access to any field (pointer or non pointer, sorry for the confusion Marcus earlier on) of an object. The primitive in the image can be named fieldAt:/fieldAt:put: if it makes more sense for Pharo.

#[0] slotAt: 1 => 0

#(#a) slotAt: 1 => #a

0@2 slotAt: 1 => 0

With Pharo 6 blocks:

| t | t := #tmp. {[ t ] slotAt: 3 . [ t ] slotAt: 4} => { 0 "numArgs". #tmp }��

Right now you can do that with instVarAt: on the contrary to what instVarAt: comment states, and this is wrong.��

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:

On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:21, Cl��ment Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Stephane Ducasse��<stepharo.self@gmail.com>��wrote:
Did you talk with marcus?

I don't understand the connection between slots and this problem with primitives.��

There is no connection, just the same name.

For Slots aka First Class Instance variables:

I sometimes think that Slot for the first class instance variables might not be a good name, but then,
the only alternative would be ��instance variable��, but that is not that nice either, as these Slots include
virtual variables (that are computed) or variables that are combine stored in a hidden base slot (e.g.
used for BooleanSlot or PropertySlot).��

So for now I will keep the Slot term��

Marcus

Cl��ment B��ra

Pharo consortium engineer

https://clementbera.wordpress.com/

B��timent B 40, avenue Halley 59650��Villeneuve d'Ascq