Hi Max,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Max Leske <maxleske at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 22 Sep 2016, at 20:28, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bert, Hi All,
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:55 PM, <commits at source.squeak.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/packages/2016-Se
>> ptember/068930.html
>>
>> Name: System-bf.916
>> Ancestors: System-bf.915
>>
>> Replace VM-level ImageSegment loading with a Smalltalk implementation for
>> old (interpreter-era) projects.
>>
>> Also removes support for writing segments.
>>
>> This overrides the Spur support introduced in System-eem.758.
>>
>
>  So one question is should we delete VM support for ImageSegment from the
> Spur VM?  There's at least 1.5k of generated source for the Spur
> ImageSegment load and save support, some 2% of the interpreter/primitives
> source code.  That's a lot, and the code is complex and ugly.  If it never
> really worked before IMO we should nuke it asap.  If it worked in some
> fashion perhaps we can schedule its demise for the 6.0 release's VM.
>
> What do others think?
>
>
> As long as you don’t remove it from the Cog VM’s until I no longer need it
> I’m fine with that.
>

And when would that be?  Do you mean that you use it in ways not covered by
Bert's modifications (which render the VM support superfluous), or do you
mean that you use ImageSegment as a naive consumer and are happy just so
long as it works?


>
> Max
>
>
> _,,,^..^,,,_
> best, Eliot
>
>
>
>


-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20160922/4cd0cdd9/attachment-0001.htm