[squeak-dev] Re: The Trunk: Tools-bf.391.mcz
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Dec 16 15:11:51 UTC 2011
On 12/16/2011 15:11, David Corking wrote:
> I disagree that it is obscure.
>
> It is very easy for a beginner to mistakenly get Smalltalk into a
> tight loop. I have done it myself, and I have loaded others' code that
> made Squeak uninterruptible.
My point about this situation being obscure related exclusively to the
example of 10000 factorial. If you have had other code that has similar
issues I would encourage you to try it out to see if the workaround Bert
has been posting actually addresses it. I kinda doubt it. Bert's
workaround works for situation where there is a problem with printing
the call stack (as exercised with 10000 factorial); but these situations
are extremely rare.
It is more likely that in the situations where you've found Squeak to be
non-interruptable, some other issue (such as selecting the 'wrong'
process) is the cause of your problems.
> The user interrupt should be a selling point for Squeak, not a
> discouragement. Unfortunately, beginners, no matter how clueful, are
> likely to be discouraged by a broken promise, rather than seek out
> advice to turn off logging in their image.
Certainly. But I'm questioning your assumption that most cases of
non-interruptability of Squeak would be caused by logging delays. My
claim is that under "normal" operations these delays are practically
non-existent.
> FWIW, I haven't tested Bert's patch, but I think the proposal to
> comment out one line is appropriately minimal for a pre-release code
> freeze.
Then please, go ahead and test it. If you find that your various
situations under which you've seen non-interruptability are solved by
it, you can color me impressed :-)
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|