GNU Smalltalk 4.1 released!

2011-04-01 Thread Paolo Bonzini
GNU Smalltalk 4.1 has been released at * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.gz SHA1 checksum: 617072696c277320666f6f6c2773206865726521 * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.xz SHA1 checksum: cd08a6638b5efb87198b47f7c0796e3993eb5157 This release features a complet

Re: GNU Smalltalk 4.1 released!

2011-04-01 Thread rixed
-[ Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini ] > GNU Smalltalk 4.1 has been released at > > * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.gz > SHA1 checksum: 617072696c277320666f6f6c2773206865726521 Cannot find it. Not there yet?

Re: GNU Smalltalk 4.1 released!

2011-04-01 Thread Roberto Rosetti
On 04/01/2011 12:45 PM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote: > -[ Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini ] >> GNU Smalltalk 4.1 has been released at >> >> * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.gz >> SHA1 checksum: 617072696c277320666f6f6c2773206865726521 > Cannot find it.

Re: GNU Smalltalk 4.1 released!

2011-04-01 Thread rixed
-[ Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 01:16:31PM +0200, Roberto Rosetti ] > On 04/01/2011 12:45 PM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote: > > -[ Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:24:29AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini ] > >> GNU Smalltalk 4.1 has been released at > >> > >> * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.gz > >>

Re: GNU Smalltalk 4.1 released!

2011-04-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello! Paolo Bonzini writes: > GNU Smalltalk 4.1 has been released at > > * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.gz > SHA1 checksum: 617072696c277320666f6f6c2773206865726521 > * ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/smalltalk-4.1.tar.xz > SHA1 checksum: cd08a6638b5efb87198b47f7c0796e3

Re: Is there any approach to define "private" vars in GOOPS?

2011-04-01 Thread Neil Jerram
nalaginrut writes: > Sorry I think the "update score" is a fake problem. It can be solved by > #:allocation #:virtual. > But I still want to talk this topic: "How to hide the critical > property?" With apologies for the late reply... I guess something like this (untested): (define valid-score