Ralph Johnson wrote:
> Consider the code
> 
> object eventual: [...  ^3]
> ...
> ^4
> 
> Depending on the missing code, it could return either 3 or 4.  If not,
> something is very strange, and the language is no longer Smalltalk.

Not at all. Eventual/future sends introduce a new unit of concurrency 
and the only thing we're arguing is whether that second unit of 
concurrency will be executed before the first one. In E/Croquet this is 
not possible, but it is really no different from, e.g.,

Object>>foo
   [^3] forkAt: Processor activePriority-1.
   ^4

When you run this, it will return 4 (every time) and fall over the 
non-local return later (every time).

Cheers,
   - Andreas