>From: Zulq Alam <me at zulq.net>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: Squeak and native threads
>Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:14:28 +0000
>
>I don't understand what you mean by 'any state changing operation is going 
>to have to be "atomic", so we wouldn't use the keyword as much as they do'? 
>We would have to use the atomic keyword wherever there is a state change - 
>why is this less for Smalltalk?

Well my thinking with that was:  If you change an instance variable you are 
changing shared state (but I could be wrong here).  The main point was that 
for this to be really useful, it needs be as non-intrusive as possible in 
the common case.  That is, the best would be if some change could be made 
and squeak was suddenly capable of running in multiple threads with the 
current code base.

_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG