[Q] Status of blocks

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue Jan 14 22:23:21 UTC 2003

I think unbundling them is a great idea. Changes are easier to swallow
in small pieces.


Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> 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 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
> -- 
> 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