[Vm-dev] Having a specific class for temp vectors

[Levente Uzonyi]

I checked how the implementation actually works, and I came to the 
conclusion that using a separate class might be a good idea, because 
there's no easy way to tell if an Array returned by #tempAt: is a temp 
vector with some temporaries or just a regular array in a temporary 
variable. This means that returning the wrapped objects would 
probably require a lot more changes.

I'd still refrain from the additional changes which would introduce some 
overhead in the methods you listed. Why?
For #become:, I understand the reason why you'd want it to add the check, 
but there are so many other cases to handle (e.g.: "true become: false") 
if you want to make #become: safer.
For immutability, I don't see the reason for the restriction. What if I, 
as the programmer, want to do a little hack, and overwrite the value of a 
temporary variable of a given block. That should work IMHO. So making the 
array immutable is fine, making the user unable to make it mutable is 
not.

Levente

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Levente Uzonyi wrote:

>
> Wouldn't it be a better solution to change #tempAt: to return the wrapped 
> object instead of the temp vector?
>
> Levente
>