Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Properties are never inherited, they belong to just that one PMC.
Well, yeah. That's what they're designed to do. But agreed that for the
sake of clarity attributes and properties should keep two separate names.
> Therefore a
> much more efficient implementation of current properties is to use one
> AddrRegistry hash (which is keyed by the PMCs address) and store this
> information there.
Efficient, possibly. More stable, robust, and safe for concurrency I'm
not so sure about.
> The other nasty "feature" of properties is: as they *might sometimes*
be used
> at runtime with any PMC, we still have to provide some storage place
for the
> property for *all* the innocent other PMCs, which don't never ever use
> properties. This is a serious drawback for a good PMC and interpreter
design.
Will this not be alleviated by the new variable-sized PMCs you're
prototyping? Anyway, I can't see that allocating storage for a single
reference to another data structure is going to break the bank.
Allison
