Image format proposals... Re: [SqF]Report of VI4 Project for
Feb '02
Martin McClure
martin at hand2mouse.com
Sun Feb 3 03:52:13 UTC 2002
At 9:06 PM -0500 2/2/02, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> >
>> This second class of usage is the primary motivation for adding the
>> header bit. All the alternatives to this that I've seen either
>> severely limit the functionality or are extremely ugly.
>>
>
>Do you really need a header bit? What about just reserving a seperate
>range of memory for such objects, then, you just see if its in that range
>before deciding whether or not to allow the mutation.
This would be of some use, and is a conceivable compromise
implementation. However, I need to be able to toggle a given object
in and out of this state fairly frequently, and that gets more
complicated and less performant with a separate memory area.
Also, when objects are created I can't always tell whether they
should go in the separate memory area or not, and that complicates
things further.
>
>There are also issues of what about:
>
> foo array mutate
> foo mutate
Sorry, but I don't understand the question here. Explain further?
>
>
>> So I still think the proposal to be worth seriously considering.
>>
>
>Can you explain how, where, and why you need these bits? There doesn't
>seem room to get them..
I haven't seen the other proposals for changing the header, so I
can't yet say where the bit (I only need one) would come from.
>
>Also, I would be careful about considering removing hashBits. Take away
>just two hashbits, and Morph becomes at least twice as slow, or even
>1000x.
Agreed, removing hash bits is not desirable.
-Martin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|