Just one little thing

[Murphy's Law]

>Yes, we do have to consider this; but tha's kernel considerations and we
>didn't even agree on the OOness of the kernel.
> My opinion is that code descriptors allow any possible means to pass 
>parameters (through a stack, through registers, through a global variable,
>etc. The execution handler should translate parameters as they should be
>for the called function to operate. Of course, we must define the our own
>preferences for the moose coding. I suggest using registers for quick
 
Well, parameters are going to be a sticky (no pun on gooey intemnded) issue..  
 
Maybe have a kernel call to get paramenters, as opposed to the CP/Mish PSP idea.

>What we were converging to is a dictionary of accessible functions: every
>objects has access to a version of the dictionary. A method can thus be
>more or less private (there's no more two possible states, but an infinity
>of them at touch !) depending on wha dictionaries  it appears in.

My point was that before a method would be loaded, it could be checked 
for unauthrozied changes..
 
>text screen) and shells running inside terminals. The text windows are
>useful when you use a computer with an old low-resolution (eg CGA) screen,
>or a text-only screen (ever have used a vt100 ?).

I have a CGA, and I have used a VT52.  *shuuder*  I now do most of my
work on a monochrome 386SL-25 and use the cga for remote debugging.

>who is using this pseudonym Murphys's Law, fate@* ?
>(just btw)

I'm Erik..  I just used the pseudonym because i could...