I didn't mean to imply that it is something new...just a new
implementation for Squeak.  The point I was trying to make is that it
would be nice to debate the merits of adopting Anthony's block closure
implementation independent of his activation stack implementation.

- Stephen

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> >"Stephen Pair" <spair at acm.org> wrote:
> > > But even the stack optimizations that are in VI4
> > > concern me a bit.  It seems like that goes too far into 
> the research 
> > > realm and jeopardizes the acceptance of the work done on block 
> > > closures. Everyone knows what block closures are and why they are 
> > > needed; there is a much greater chance of them getting 
> into the base 
> > > VM if they don't come with extra stuff that's less well 
> understood 
> > > and proven.
> 
> I hope nobody really thinks that the topic of using an 
> activation stack to 
> implement Smalltalk is a "research" topic. It is a proven 
> technique that 
> has been used successfully by a number of Smalltalk 
> implementations (In 
> fact, I pretty sure that the majority of Smalltalk systems 
> that are not 
> directly derived from the Smalltalk-80 code base use this 
> technique).  You 
> certainly can debate the design merits of a heap 
> implementation compared to 
> a stack implementation or debate the quality of a stack-based 
> design, but 
> anyone who thinks that using a stack for Smalltalk is something new 
> obviously hasn't done their homework.
> 
> Allen_Wirfs-Brock at instantiations.com