2011/7/19 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, there's the tricky edge case:
>>
>> 0.5s2 = 0.5s3
>> 0.5s2 class = 0.5s3 class.
>>
>> But they should be different literals.
>> I think there is a test case for it.
>>
>> Same goes for arrays
>>
>> #( 0 ) = #( 0.0 )
>>
>> I think we defined a #literalEquals: or something like that to handle this
>> kind of cases.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed.  I can change this.  But before doing so does anyone else
> agree that the whole hasLiteral: hasLiteralThorough: is too heavy-weight and
> we should ditch hasLiteralThorough: and make hasLiteral: be thorough?  And I
> suppose more importantly does anyone disagree?
>

Not easy to tell, there are too many senders...
For example, #hasReportableSlip would report itself as bad-behaved if you
redefine hasLiteral: to be thorough.
But it would be easy to fix by just using same trick as #isBlueBookCompiled
(self messages incldues: ...)
    #(#doOnlyOnce: #halt #halt: #hottest #printDirectlyToDisplay #toRemove
#personal #urgent  #haltOnce #haltOnce: #haltIf: )
        do: [:aLit | ((self hasLiteral: aLit) and: [self messages includes:
aLit])
                ifTrue: [^ true]].

There might be other quirks, like RB is using refersToLiteral: which is
using hasLiteral: (non thorough).
Maybe we can just try and see...

Nicolas


>
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> 2011/7/19 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean at clipperadams.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tried:
>>>>
>>>>    aMethod hasLiteral: #DateAndTime->DateAndTime
>>>>
>>>> and got false, even though an "=" literal is indeed there.
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't #hasLiteral: use #=?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the tricky thing with literals is that 0.0 = 0 and 'one' = #one but
>>> these are all different literals.  That said, it looks like a bug to me.  It
>>> should surely be
>>>
>>> !CompiledMethod methodsFor: 'literals' stamp: 'eem 7/19/2011 09:19'!
>>> hasLiteral: literal
>>> | litClass lit |
>>>  "Answer whether the receiver references the argument, literal."
>>> litClass := literal class.
>>>  2 to: self numLiterals - 1 do: "exclude superclass +
>>> selector/properties"
>>> [:index |
>>>  lit := self objectAt: index.
>>> (litClass == lit class and: [literal = lit]) ifTrue: [^true]].
>>>  ^false! !
>>> !Array methodsFor: 'private' stamp: 'eem 7/19/2011 09:20'!
>>> hasLiteral: literal
>>> "Answer true if literal is identical to any literal in this array, even
>>>  if imbedded in further array structure. This method is only intended
>>> for private use by CompiledMethod hasLiteralSymbol:"
>>>
>>> | litClass lit |
>>> litClass := literal class.
>>> 1 to: self size do:
>>>  [:index |
>>> (litClass == (lit := self at: index) class
>>> and: [literal = lit]) ifTrue: [^true].
>>>  (Array == lit class
>>>  and: [lit hasLiteral: literal]) ifTrue: [^true]].
>>> ^false! !
>>>
>>> I've run all the tests in a trunk 4.2 before and after and making the
>>> above change makes no difference.  So I think I'll go ahead and commit the
>>> change to Squeak trunk.  I'll leave the Pharo folks to apply it there-in.
>>>  Files attached.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://forum.world.st/Why-does-CompiledMethod-hasLiteral-use-tp3676573p3676573.html
>>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> best,
>>> Eliot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> best,
> Eliot
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110719/f7a018bf/attachment.htm