On 07.01.2014, at 14:30, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 January 2014 12:42, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 05.01.2014, at 22:45, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not blowing up at least.  But is there a reason to need both cases as
>>> a Dictionary or a SharedPool or would it be better to decide on one or
>>> the other exclusively?  (in 4.6, that is)
>> 
>> As Tim wrote, there are some obnoxious pools in the image that are not easily converted to a static form. A SharedPool is really a holder of a limited number of constants. But e.g. TextConstants is everything but constant - every font you install creates a new entry, which would correspond to a new class variable in the SharedPool. Installing a font should not modify code, agreed? So that's why TextConstants is still a dictionary pool.
> 
> As a counterpoint, this method will only affect the creation of _new_
> pools: so should these _new_ pools be Dictionary instances, or
> SharedPools?

Good point. Seems reasonable to encourage the use of SharedPools.

- Bert -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4142 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140107/b44a353c/smime.bin