On 2003-11-20T18:56:20-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote: > So we can't have the functionality of forward without serious problems > for ST? I don't know -- what's "the functionality of forward"? You'll need to specify what it means in a system-independent way in order for that question to make sense. It seems to me that doing so would involve making precise what you mean by "object", "method", "respond", etc. One way to do so is to specify a simple language that is as small as possible (so as to not disqualify every non-Smalltalk system) yet contains all the features you care about, and describe how computation proceeds in the language. If by "the functionality of forward" you just mean "the functionality of forward in Smalltalk", then the answer is trivial -- Smalltalk doesn't have static typing, so static typing has serious problems in Smalltalk, namely nonexistence. Ken -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig http://www.thismodernworld.com/ "vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"
Description: Digital signature