Right now I return a symbol instead of the class but I could return a class. Now I would like to avoid to blindly think that we have a single namespace. So returning a class implies to be sure that the definition is parsed in the same environment than the class it refers and to me this is a constraint I do not like. So I will return a symbol. Let me know what you think.
maybe #slotClassName instead of #slotClass?
Yes I will rename typeName
Iâm not against the symbol...
slotDefinition(1) initializationMessage >>> 'default: 5â or better >>> Node(default: 5) if it exist
Now I do not know what to do: because I can create a message with an empty receiver. Because
Two simple solutions that come to my mind 1) âinstVar3â generates a CDSlotNode with a default #slotClassName = #InstanceVariableSlot (I like this solution the less because it hardcodes in the parser knowledge about the runtime)
Yes I did this.
2) we have two different nodes (becase they have different syntax) CDSlotNode and CDDefaultSlotNode and DefaultSlotNode does not have a class name and should be visited differently.
Yes. I was wondering what would be initializationMessage part of a normal slot. And may be having these two can solve the problem. I do not like to put a nil or #() in the initializeMessage (and I was thinking that I would need a NullMessage but this is not nice. So Iâm thinking that having two different nodes may be good now I do not know what to do for the initializeMessage (if it would be an action I would do nothing)
S.