Scott A Crosby wrote:

>> collections, including method dictionaries. (I haven't rechecked my
>> facts, this is all from memory, so please correct me if I've got any
>> of the details wrong.)
> 
> No, I preserve the old (flawed) behavior for method dictionaries, rather
> than rebuilding a new image. True, this means that MethodDictionaries
> should not be scaled beyond, say, 2000 or so methods. I don't consider
> this a real problem.
> 
> Scott

For simplicity reasons they ought to be changed too, to keep everything the
same. Do you have any benchmarks for such a change?

Also, changing the image format or rehashing all sets or any such should not
be considered a problem with a new image format being instated anyway, so we
ought to disregard such issues and just go for the best solution.

Henrik

PS. My thought was also that the two bits change should have a solid
motivation. Even more so given the clear (yet not severe) disadvantages. "It
might perhaps sometime become useful" is not enough IMHO.