|
osdir.com mailing list archive |
|
Subject: Test Failures and Errors - msg#00128List: lang.smalltalk.squeak.beginnersAre these test failures known? I was rather surprised to have anything but "green" when I ran these tests. Thread at a glance:
Previous Message by Date: click to view message previewRestrict access to objects and methodsI just started looking at Squeak and SmallTalk last night and I'm already getting hooked! I have a best of both worlds question. The ability to access and edit any method or abject all using SmallTalk is great, but is there any way to restrict a program so it can only access certain objects? What I'm looking for is a way to allow code to be compiled and run in Squeak, but keep that program from being able to make or save changes to the world, access the host (Windows/Linux, etc) file system, etc. My first impression is that this goes against the grain of Squeak's basic architecture and premise, but I'm wondering if maybe there's some way to set up a world inside a world or something like that. Would it be possible to create an object that serves as a virtual world for a program to run in? A program running in this setup could have access to all or most of the same classes as a program in the real world, but it could only access the virtual-world object, it's children and maybe an explicit subset of real world objects as defined by the virtual-world object. Thanks! ________________________________________________________________________ FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637 Previous Message by Thread: click to view message previewRestrict access to objects and methodsI just started looking at Squeak and SmallTalk last night and I'm already getting hooked! I have a best of both worlds question. The ability to access and edit any method or abject all using SmallTalk is great, but is there any way to restrict a program so it can only access certain objects? What I'm looking for is a way to allow code to be compiled and run in Squeak, but keep that program from being able to make or save changes to the world, access the host (Windows/Linux, etc) file system, etc. My first impression is that this goes against the grain of Squeak's basic architecture and premise, but I'm wondering if maybe there's some way to set up a world inside a world or something like that. Would it be possible to create an object that serves as a virtual world for a program to run in? A program running in this setup could have access to all or most of the same classes as a program in the real world, but it could only access the virtual-world object, it's children and maybe an explicit subset of real world objects as defined by the virtual-world object. Thanks! ________________________________________________________________________ FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637 Loading Comments...
|
|
