On 10/24/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, the plan was that since in Smalltalk objects are mutable, I will
> have to pay an extra cost for internal message sends and have the VM
> do a deep copy for the sent objects.

Ack, terminology overload. :)  What I meant here is, obviously if I
sent a message between two literal images there is no choice but to do
a deep copy.  Erlang gains some benefit from sending interprocess
messages where the sender and receiver are in the same literal image
via reference, but I can't because Smalltalk can mutate variables.  So
this means I have to do the deep copy in *every* case.  Unless I make
some changes.