On Jan 10, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Damien Cassou wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Hernan Wilkinson
> <hernan.wilkinson@10pines.com> wrote:
>> Was my interpretation of Alias incorrect? or is the current implementation
>> of alias incorrect? (maybe due to some implementation problems?)
>
> @ is an Alias operator, not a Rename operator. That means when you
> alias { #m3 -> #m1 } you get a new name for the same method. So what
> you see is the expected behavior, as defined in the paper. And the
> direction of the arrow makes sense: #m3 -> #m1 is read as "m3 is a new
> name for m1", whereas for a Rename operator, we would probably have
> something like "#m1 -> #m3", i.e., m1 is renamed to m3. In a fully
> dynamic language, a Rename operator would be quite hard to implement I
> guess, IIRC Eiffel has a rename operator.

Not quite hard. doing it fully and correctly is no possible because you should distinguish the methods
that should be renamed.