Stephan Rudlof <sr at evolgo.de> wrote:
> Mats,
> 
> Mats Nygren wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've had a look at the compiler and the VM.
> > 
> > I can do the block closures.
> 
> Very good! It's one of the things at my wish list and I've thought about
> to put it onto my toDo list...

Why didnt you ;->

> > But don't expect to see anything before the
> > middle of October as I have other things that has to be done. I have the
> > straighforard way of doing it in mind,
> 
> I'v just read the purple book chapter about interpreter stuff, so for me
> it wouldn't be straightforward with my current knowledge...
> 
> > allocating block contexts.
> 
> Do you really mean BlockContexts or rather BlockClosures?

I don't understand the question. (Perhaps my reply to Lex is
what your thinking about)

> > No fancy
> > optimizations.
> 
> But blocks shouldn't be much slower than before then.

They will use more memory. I'm not into the minute details
yet. See reply to Lex.

> > The semantics I have in mind is as in ANSI Smalltalk, is that what is
> > wanted?
> 
> To be compatible to the standard seems to be reasonable for me.
> 
> > In particular it will be possible to shadow variables in
> > enclosing scopes.
> 
> BlockClosures?

Dont understand.

> 
> > While at it I will restructure the compiler a little.
> 
> Seems as if you're really experienced in compiler construction...

Unfortunately not, but this isn't that big a thing. A working compiler
is already there. The handling of variable names need to be changed and
the details of how to manage blocks need to be changed a little, that's
all. And see my reply to Dwight Hughes.

> Greetings,
> 
> Stephan
> 
> > 
> > /Mats
> 
> -- 
> Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
>    "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
>     You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
>     -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3