On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:58 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

> Understood, though my question was intended to be about the existing
> primitiveMillisecondClock, which will presumably be retained for a
> few more years. Andreas committed a fix for a rather nasty bug related
> to a constant in the image being out of sync with a constant in the VM.
> The method comment noted that "This should be primitive but it ain't"
> so I was just offering to add the primitive and update Squeak trunk
> to use it when available.

Why does the existing primitiveMillisecondClock have to be maintained?
Is there a lot of code that depends on it rolling over? No sarcasm
intended, it's an honest question.

Colin