On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:38:27 +0200, Bert Freudenberg rote:

> On Sep 13, 2007, at 15:38 , Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>
>>> Suppose you sending #doInParralell message to some unknown block
>>> (which contents is unknown at compile time).
>>
>> ... have a Smalltalk example of aBlock which contents is unknown at  
>> compile time?
>
> Huh? That's the rule rather than the exception, isn't it? We're passing  
> blocks around all the time, and e.g., #do: does not know at compile time  
> what block will be passed in.

Sure. But every block is, when declared, usually seen by the compiler.  
Just asked for an example for resolving a confusion.

> Anyway, I can see the point of those who think that if "[...]" produces  
> an unadorned BlockClosure then a generic implementation of #values is  
> impossible. However, who says that the compiler must discard the  
> original list of statements when creating the BlockClosure? It could  
> well be retained and made use of in BlockClosure>>values or other  
> interesting extensions.

Sort of #reflectiveMethod (which does cacheing) from Marcus :)

/Klaus

> - Bert -
>
>
>
>