On Feb 5, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:29 , Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> I'm with Terry on the correct idiom to use, i.e.
>>>    workerProcess := [self runWorkerProcess] newProcess.
>>>    workerProcess resume.
>>
>> Sigh. One of the problems with examples is that they are ... well  
>> examples. They are not the actual code. The above solution is  
>> simply not applicable in our context (if it were, I would agree  
>> with it as the better solution).
>>
>> [BTW, I'm gonna drop out of this thread since it's clear that there  
>> is too much opposition for such a change to get into Squeak. Which  
>> is fine by me - I'll wait until you will get bitten in some really  
>> cruel and unusual ways and at that point you might be ready to  
>> understand why this fix is valuable. Personally, I think that  
>> changes that take out an unusual case of non-determinism like here  
>> are always worth it - if behavior is deterministic you can test it  
>> and fix it. If it's not you might get lucky a hundred times in a  
>> row. And in the one critical situation it will bite you].
>
> Well, you should give us a bit more than a few hours ;) Until now  
> most posters did not even understand the proposal.
Why?

>
>
> I for one would appreciate getting your fix in. It does not change  
> the current semantics, and makes one very common idiom (var := [...]  
> fork) safer to use. There may be better idioms, granted. However,  
> for now Squeak's scheduling policy is beautifully deterministic, and  
> I like keeping simple things simple.
>
> - Bert -
>
>

	Mth