[Q] Status of blocks

Tim Rowledge tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
Sun Jan 12 22:18:32 UTC 2003

Anthony Hannan <ajh18 at cornell.edu> appears to have written:

>  I'm thinking of
> separating the full closure functionality out so it can be filed into
> current Squeak.  It will involve changing the compiler but not the
> bytecodes.  Blocks will probably be slower because they will have to use
> sends instead of custom bytecodes for certain closure operations.  But
> at least it will be compatible with the next Jitter.  Also, the
> remaining VI4 project will be free to continue exploring alternative
> bytecodes and such.  I bet most people will like this separation.  Is
> there anyone who thinks I should keep closures bundled with VI4?
Making progress towards separating concerns about the vm design from the
closures would be very helpful in making adoption of your sterling work
easier to arrange.

There are a few vacant bytecodes that could easily be retargeted for
block support purposes to improve performance a bit over plain message
sends, without causing massive changes.


Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Useful random insult:- Half a bubble off plumb.  -- attributed to Mark Twain

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list