What would Squeak be like without non-local returns
johnson at cs.uiuc.edu
Thu Nov 8 05:55:16 UTC 2007
On 11/7/07, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.,
> [^3] forkAt: Processor activePriority-1.
> When you run this, it will return 4 (every time) and fall over the
> non-local return later (every time).
But that wasn't what I said. Your code is different from mine. Note the ...
More information about the Squeak-dev