tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> David T. Lewis wrote:
> 
> > It would be pretty surprising if this was that only thing that failed,
> > because there are memory address checks scattered all over the interpreter.
> Oh, I agree entirely - in fact I was astonished that the system would 
> even run. Still, it _is_ the only problem that has actually caused a 
> problem for me so far. I'm sure another one will now immediately arise 
> to bite me for having the effrontery to say that.

Same here. Haven't seen any other malfunction. And funky enough it seems
that "-memory 30m" makes Linux put Squeak in a better place or
something. :)

> tim

regards, Göran

PS. Am I daft - or why is it a *signed* int? Why not simply unsigned?