[Vm-dev] Integration of the BlockClolsure>>value primitive
mathk.sue at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 10:17:17 UTC 2007
Thanks for your review.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Yes, I did. A few questions:
> 1) Why didn't you recycle prims 186 and 187? They are marked as
> "old closure primitives" but I don't think they have ever being
> used. Seems a bit more to the point than adding two new prim indexes.
Yes I could do this.
> 2) Why indexed prims to begin with? I'd rather have named ones to
> start out with because it seems that there is quite some
> possibility that these prims might be changed again and then we get
> into troubles with the prim indexes. I would recommend to use named
> prims until there is a mainstream version of closures and then (if
> necessary) decide on which prim indexes to use.
Ok I didn't know how to do it so I will make a named primitive
> 3) Is there a reason why these prims aren't shortcut from
> bytecodePrimValue? If speed is the main point I'd expect that a
> quick type check for BlockClosure+primClosureValue outperforms the
> current implementation by far.
Yes, I didn't know that they were a bytecode for the send of #value
and #value: . This imply that I should add the BlockClosure in the
For me it will be useful but it will be an other things to push in
> It would also take the pressure of requiring an indexed primitive
> for speed.
Ok I don't know how to make named primitive. If you have time could
you briefly explain it.
More information about the Vm-dev