At Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:11:10 +1300,
Michael van der Gulik wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 8, 2008 1:32 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki at vpri.org> wrote:
> 
>     >      Yes, the #lowestPriority case would be a problem.  The
>     >     #lowestPriority would be renamed to #reallyLowestPriority and new
>     >     #lowestPriority would return #reallyLowestPriority+1?
>     >
>     > Would you seriously consider changing this in the squeak.org image?
>    
>      I don't know the right answer to this question.  I understand that
>     most of people don't need it and then don't want to have it.  OTOH, I
>     don't mind to have it and that would prevent a few people in the
>     future stumble on the problem...
> 
> In that case, the lowest priority idle thread needs to be of a lower priority than #reallyLowestPriority, so I propose
> also adding #actualReallyLowestPriority to be the lowest priority, then #reallyLowestPriority to be #
> actualReallyLowestPriority+1 and #lowestPriority to be #actualReallyLowestPriority+2.

  Ah, so by saying *this*, you're referring to the method name, not
the idea.  Sorry for misunderstanding.

  No, we don't have to have #reallyLowestPriority method, sure.

-- Yoshiki