On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Colin Putney <colin@wiresong.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, in the end I decided on primitive number 169. It doesn't waste the
> 150-159 range and is in amongst primitiveAdoptInstance and
> primitiveSetIdentityHash. David, would you like to integrate this into the
> main branch?

If dynamic frequency is low, why does it need to be a primitive?

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.

Colin