On 9/5/07, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
>
> You are still stuck on byte codes eh? That is so 1960's. I invite you
> into the innovation frame of mind, discard what you think you know about
> this topic, and open your eyes wide open and imagine a future with
> powerful blocks. We are just scratching the surface with this one new
> block feature. I've invented ten more powerful capabilities for blocks
> and integrated them so they work well.
>
> There are many ways to implement the two evaluators for blocks. For
> example, depending on your byte code set you could have a bit for a
> flag, or you could duplicate the byte codes with one set for each
> evaluation type. Or you could get rid of byte codes all together which
> is the better approach.

What Smalltalk system doesn't use byte codes?

As far as the blocks question, I think it's not a bad idea.  The idea
of a block is already overloaded somewhat with:

[ "..." ] fork