Well as I said before, I want to (eventually) add a sublanguage for DSP and
the like and for that it would be much less constraining if there was a way
for Slang code to not have to be leaves.

So my interest in calling out from Slang code is for much more than a loop
primitive.

Joshua

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
To: "Joshua Scholar" <jscholar at access4less.net>; "The general-purpose Squeak
developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Adding loop
primitives/optimizations(wasMakingSet/Dictionaryetc. loops more robust)


> > Perhaps setjump etc. isn't necessary.
>
> Perhaps not. *shrug*
>
> > Why not have the primitive make a
> > call that leaves what looks like an ordinary call-frame on Smalltalks
> > stack
> > waiting for a return with a the PC counter hacked backwards so that it
> > RERUNS THE PRIMITIVE.  You an have two primitives if that makes it
easier.
>
> Well, good luck. This all sounds horribly messy to me. Making a fake call
> stack with a hacked pc counter ... *shudder*.
>
> > If you want collectable variables, perhaps you can stick these
primitives
> > inside of a block or method with local variables and let them primitive
> > access ordinary Smalltalk locals.
>
> I'm sure you can do even more but I have to ask at which point a former
> exercise in optimization becomes a hack for the sole purpose of prooving
> that it can be done in precisely that way. Given all that has been talked
> about I'd rather spend my time making sure Squeak message sends run faster
> instead of trying to implement a particular primitive (for which the
> effectiveness has not been proven I might add).
>
> Good luck,
>   - Andreas
>
>
>