On Feb 8, 2008 1:14 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki at vpri.org> wrote:

>  (Hmm, while I'm writing this, I saw an email from nicolas.  Well,
> what a sychronicity; he also uses the phrase "counter intuitive".  But
> the argument is different somehow... So let me post this anyway...)
>
> > Unless I've missed some correction to the patch, the patch isn't
> > correct. For example, you'll get an "Invalid priority" walkback if you
> > try to evaluate the following using the patch:
> >       [[Transcript show: 'works'; cr; flush] fork]
> >               forkAt: Processor lowestPriority
>
>  Yes, the #lowestPriority case would be a problem.  The
> #lowestPriority would be renamed to #reallyLowestPriority and new
> #lowestPriority would return #reallyLowestPriority+1?
>


Would you seriously consider changing this in the squeak.org image?

Gulik.

-- 
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080208/9ba07f6c/attachment.htm