Fear and loathing of the "perification" of Smalltalk
Klaus D. Witzel
klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Thu Sep 13 15:52:28 UTC 2007
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:38:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg rote:
> 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.
Sure. But every block is, when declared, usually seen by the compiler.
Just asked for an example for resolving a confusion.
> 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.
Sort of #reflectiveMethod (which does cacheing) from Marcus :)
/Klaus
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|