I never thought of that implication - if ivars are proper objects (is that now applied?) would this issue go away (an ivar would just get a new parent)?
This is a very interesting problem, as its a type of transaction, and I never though of it that way - its easy to think of it as just dumb code - but in effect it isn’t. Tim On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, at 4:30 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Wonderful to have progress on this important topic - thank you! > > Sorry I haven't been following closely (maybe you addressed it already), but > pushing up instance variables has a dangerous limitation - instances lose > any data held in that var. I guess it's because it's deleted from the > subclass prior to adding to the superclass to avoid duplicating. One > solution would be to add a var to the superclass with a mangled name, copy > the data for all instances, remove the var from the subclass, and then > rename the mangled var. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >
