On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

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

It's redundant, but let me add my agreement: Anthony, *please* do give us
block closures on the stock VM, if at all possible.  I seem to constantly
be doing things these days where I'm bitten by the lack of them.

Avi

> > 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
>
>