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.

----------------------------------------------------------------