On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:18:48 +0200, tim Rowledge wrote:
On 2-Oct-06, at 5:54 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
Hi Tim -
As much as I agree with the idea of reworking CompiledMethod in general, it seems to me we shouldn't mix up two otherwise unrelated issues.
+ 1
[snip] Yes, that is plausible and reasonable; except that I *do* think it is way past time to do the CM rework and since to makes it trivial to also clean up the source code representation I consider it a nice synergy. Sure, we can improve the source code situation by putting a normal oop in the properties. That would certainly be better.
As I said, Klaus is to be congratulated for coming up with a concrete proposal. I don't think it cleans up anywhere near enough of the mess, but that could be worked on. For example, it appears to me to leave far too much in the way of assumptions about the source pointer being an encrypted integer for real comfort.
There was only one reason for keeping this intact: the possible clients of the current source file & pointer machinery. One could get rid of the latter if all clients where known (and maintainable) by providing a new interface.
FWIW, the situation would be the same if we'd just add one more byte to the current source pointer "object" in CompiledMethod, except that migration would be a noop.
I made a technically simple but organisationally more complex proposal.
Of which I am a strong supporter.
It is what it is. If people don't like it, they don't like it.
/Klaus