On 2012-06-21, at 19:43, Nicolas Cellier wrote:

> 2012/6/21 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>> 
>>        ^ 1 + (2 + (3 + 4))
>> 
>> is exactly equivalent (same order of message sends) to
>> 
>>        | t1 t2 |
>>        t1 := 3 + 4.
>>        t2 := 2 + t1.
>>        ^ 1 + t2
>> 
>> If the temp number limit was lifted this would be the way to go, I think.
>> 
>> - Bert -
>> 
> 
> Sure, it's rather theorical without thinking of any application, but
> if these are objects rather than literals (that we can expect being
> constant), say for example some instance variable, then can we
> guaranty that the first message won't have any side effect...
> 
> (a at: 1) + ( (a at:2) * ( (a at: 1 put: ( ... ) ) + (... ) ) )
> 
> Nicolas

Did you mean to write we can *not* guarantee it?

I don't think we have to worry about side effects, as long as the evaluation order of all expressions remains the same:

	a := {3. 4}.
	(a at: 1) + ( (a at: 2) * (a at: 1 put: 5) ).

is equivalent to

	a := {3. 4}.
	t1 := a at: 1.
	t2 := a at: 2.
	t3 := a at: 1 put: 5.
	t4 := t2 * t3.
	t5 := t1 + t4.
	t5


- Bert -