[Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Thu Oct 31 13:21:55 EDT 2013

On Oct 30, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-10-30, at 22:36, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think there's something to fix.
>> You cannot 'extend' classes belonging to other package in any other way
>> than adding extension methods.
>> Allowing extension of ivars or any other vars by foreign package
>> is road to nowhere.
>> I would not like if shape of my kernel classes depends on what packages i load
>> or in what order i loaded them. 
>> To me it is clear that if one needs to add/remove/modify instance variables
>> of some class, those changes should belong to the package containing that class,
>> not some random package.
> Exactly, it would cause the same problem as we have with overrides in monticello

Sorry but this is not the same as having overrides in Monticello. It is the same as having class extensions!
So class extensions are powerful and we should get the same for instance variables.

Now the real question is not shape is how you garantee that it is well initialized!!!
Because you do not want to extend initialize because it does not work modularly.
Now with slot we can attach initializers to them and then we can get it modular.


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list