[Q] Status of blocks
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Jan 13 08:14:13 UTC 2003
Please anthony, consider what tim suggest. We need blockclosures.
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 11:18 PM, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> 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
>> 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
> 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
Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch)
"if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes
More information about the Squeak-dev