Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The Universal Language Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 16:31:51 GMT References: <24384@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <1990Aug20.220332.21135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 9 In article <1990Aug20.220332.21135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> morrison@thucydides.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Vance Morrison) writes: > Introducing more general smalltalk code that causes side effects can > destroy the simple properties of the whole program INCLUDING the code > written in the subset. Couldn't you use the more restricted code to produce objects that can be reasoned about in the way you're describing? This would let you build reliable objects, which would eliminate a large potential source of bugs in a larger program using the whole language? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com