Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!trow From: trow@uw-june (Jay Trow) Newsgroups: net.lang.st80 Subject: Re: instance variable question Message-ID: <1855@uw-june> Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 21:13:30 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-june.1855 Posted: Mon Oct 8 21:13:30 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 04:17:50 EDT References: <15992@arizona.UUCP> Reply-To: doherty.pasa@xerox.arpa, Smalltalk80Interest^@Xerox.arpa Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 18 Forwarded from Smalltalk80Interest^@Xerox.arpa ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 84 16:13 PDT From: doherty.pasa Subject: Re: instance variable question Not allowing methods to access instance variables of their superclasses seems like a terrible thing to do. It hurts the whole inheritance scheme, and is really unneccessary. When you change the definition of a class, the Xerox implementation recompiles all of its subclasses. Your example (of subclass B using class A's instance variable i and subsequently changing i) would result in a syntax error, which would open a syntax error window on the bogus method to allow you to edit the method or abort the change. ----------------------------------------------------------------