On 06.05.2014, at 22:33, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 May 2014 19:40, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Woulnd't it be better to make that a
>> dynamic variable? Because it is used as such?
>> I think this would save some stackwalking.
>> 
>> (why do I think so? I looks too similar to Seaside’s
>> use of Dynamic variables)
> 
> It is indeed a dynamic variable. It's a _delimited_ dynamic variable,
> if you want to get super picky. Last time I checked Seaside used an
> on:do: to cut the WaPartialContinuation out of the stack. (I'm running
> on memory that's possibly 5 years old. Things might have changed.)
> 
> Either way, this is exactly the right kind of dynamic variable. The
> DynamicVariable/process-local variable is the wrong kind of dynamic
> variable, the undelimited kind. It catches the _entire_ dynamic scope
> of a variable and thus is incompatible with continuations and stack
> slicing. Which we happen to do a lot, in Smalltalk.
> 
> Now there is definitely scope to talk about whether we can improve the
> stack-walking. It's what Henry Baker would call "deep binding" [1],
> and if I understand correctly, we'd need to make some seriously deep
> interventions to implement shallow binding (which has a much lower
> read cost).
> 
> frank
> 
> [1] http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/ShallowBinding.html

I'd say I learned something new today :D

Best
	-Tobias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1625 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140506/19a38ff2/signature.pgp