A naive question about the speed optimization of anthony
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Apr 3 18:11:38 UTC 2003
> Well, making the VMs "closure compatible" soon is a good thing.
> Changing gamma versions isn't.
Well, it's your choice. I was just pointing out that the changes are
"harmless" in terms of actually affecting anything and therefore could be
considered for inclusion.
> I withdraw from this discussion - I don't have anything more to add.
> Doug's call.
> Hmm, just thought about an alternative that might be better -
> add it to
> 3.6, and use 3.6 to make the 3.5 VMs. If that's the only
> difference (and
> 3.5 didn't contain a lot), it should be compatible anyway. But, again,
> whatever you guys decide.
> Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > It'll be 3.6a (3.5 is now gamma),
> > So what. We're effectively talking about five methods with
> no implication
> > whatsoever on any part of the VM or the image. Even if they
> were entirely
> > broken they'd affect nothing. If you want to move towards
> that direction
> > it's definitely worthwhile considering.
> > Cheers,
> > - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev