Am 05.01.2018 um 16:53 schrieb Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:

 

You mean

<primitive: 174 error: ec>

self isReadOnlyObject 

ifTrue: [(ModificationForbidden for: self atInstVar: index with: anObject) signal]

ifFalse: [ self primitiveFailed ]

?

Norbert

yes something like that.

Same thing for Object>>#at:put:, floatAt:put: and so on.

I’m working on it and came by

Object>>#primitiveChangeClassTo:

and I wonder what would be the approach here. The ModificationForbidden/NoModificationError seems to be tight to an index. What would be the case for a class change? Another Exception class?

How is that solved in VW? 

Norbert

 

Am 05.01.2018 um 14:22 schrieb Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:

Hi,

No this is not a bug.

This needs to be handled in the primitive failure code in the image, the method should be something like that :

Object>>instVarAt: index put: anObject

<primitive: 174 error: ec>

        self isReadOnlyObject ifTrue: [(ModificationForbidden for: self atInstVar: index with: anObject) signal]

self primitiveFailed

All primitive fall-back code triggering object mutation should be rewritten this way, especially primitives such as #at:put:, #instVarAt:put:, etc.

Cheers

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:

 

If I do 

(#foo -> #bar)

beReadOnlyObject;

value: #baz

it throws

ModificationForbidden:  #foo->#bar is read-only, hence its field 2 cannot be modified with #baz

 which is as expected. But if I do

(#foo -> #bar)

beReadOnlyObject;

instVarNamed: #value put: #baz

I get

PrimitiveFailed: primitive #instVarAt:put: in Association failed

I think this a bug, no?

Norbert

-- 

Clément Béra

Pharo consortium engineer

https://clementbera.wordpress.com/

Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq

-- 

Clément Béra

Pharo consortium engineer

https://clementbera.wordpress.com/

Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq