[Q] Status of blocks

Swan, Dean Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM
Thu Jan 16 01:00:22 UTC 2003

Please pardon my ignorance, but if Anthony's VI4 work
is done, includes block closures and is faster than the
stock VM, why is there reluctance to take it as a whole?

I've read some of the messages related to this, and from
my point of view, a new bytecode set and stack contexts
are both great improvements and we should want them as

Could anyone enlighten me about the concerns?  I understand
there are emotional reasons (i.e. too much change for comfort),
but I don't see any technical drawbacks.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Hannan [mailto:ajh18 at cornell.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:11 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [Q] Status of blocks
> Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Alright, I will.  But beware, it will make Squeak slower, rather than
> faster like VI4.  I don't know how much slower yet.  I will 
> try to make
> closures optional, meaning you can set a preference as to 
> which compiler
> you want to use when methods are saved.
> Cheers,
> Anthony

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list