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

I��m not against the symbol...

slotDefinition(1) initializationMessage
>>> 'default: 5��
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) ��instVar3�� 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 I��m 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.