IIUC -
If a block doesn't define temporary variables, there's no problem. The
current deviation from BC is that this variable would be actually
defined in the method, instead, thus having wrong sharing semantics.

I'll throw in another question (for Anthony/VM implementors). Is there a
reason the additional primitives needed for Anthony current BC code to
work well can't be released as a plugin? 

If it's possible, I think this would help more people test this work.

Daniel

John M McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi, actually I'll throw a question back. In some respects a concern I  
> have is how that changes how an application runs. Right now because you  
> lack full blocks with proper closure one can code up some smalltalk  
> that works just fine for your application right now. But after  
> introducing the VM change, why it will behave differently. This is the  
> risk that we face in making the VM change, beyond performance.
> 
> So now I'm wondering if as an re-engineering challenge you folks have a  
> tool that could statically evaluate blocks and decide if a particular  
> block has risky behavior, thus it would need to be reviewed/retested  
> when used with VM that does proper closure.
> 
> On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12:06  PM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> (2) what are the problems to introduce them in Squeak (for example with  
> the optimizations is seaside continuation passing style still working),
> >
> > So tell me
> >
> > Stef
> > --
> ======================================================================== 
> ===
> John M. McIntosh <johnmci at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ======================================================================== 
> ===