<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Colin Putney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:colin@wiresong.com">colin@wiresong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Eliot Miranda <<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> OK, in the end I decided on primitive number 169. It doesn't waste the<br>
> 150-159 range and is in amongst primitiveAdoptInstance and<br>
> primitiveSetIdentityHash. David, would you like to integrate this into the<br>
> main branch?<br>
<br>
</div>If dynamic frequency is low, why does it need to be a primitive?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>People avoid it because of performance. But I much prefer foo ~~ bar ifTrue: than foo == bar ifFalse:. So I suspect/hope dynamic frequency will grow as people find its not such a performance issue any more.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888"><br>
Colin<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div><br>