On Sep 13, 2007, at 15:38 , Klaus D. Witzel wrote:

>> Suppose you sending #doInParralell message to some unknown block
>> (which contents is unknown at compile time).
>
> ... have a Smalltalk example of aBlock which contents is unknown at  
> compile time?

Huh? That's the rule rather than the exception, isn't it? We're  
passing blocks around all the time, and e.g., #do: does not know at  
compile time what block will be passed in.

Anyway, I can see the point of those who think that if "[...]"  
produces an unadorned BlockClosure then a generic implementation of  
#values is impossible. However, who says that the compiler must  
discard the original list of statements when creating the  
BlockClosure? It could well be retained and made use of in  
BlockClosure>>values or other interesting extensions.

- Bert -