[Vm-dev] Re: [squeak-dev] The Trunk: System-eem.803.mcz

Tobias Pape Das.Linux at gmx.de
Thu Mar 3 08:10:10 UTC 2016

Hi all, Hi Eliot, Hi Clément

Well, you know I'm the opponent here regarding the Immutability naming.
I hate that I have to come back to the naming thing here once again.
But it is rather important for me, since I work on immutability concepts
that are unlike what immutability would mean here. I think it is also
important to know that immutability in most other languages means
 "it won't change whatsoever" (including OCaml[1], Racket[2], 
Haskell[3], or object-oriented programming in general[4])

Now, I see the need, usefulness, and practical implementation for objects
that cannot be written and hence throw an error, which _then_ can be
circumvented/made be writable. I'm all for it and I like it. Except
for the name.

As Clément put it:
	"As argued on the virtual machine mailing list, we are talking 
	about a write-barrier more than immutability itself."

I would hence propose to name those objects

	locked objects

with the accompanying Someone-tries-to-write-that-Error named


and the state-change messages 


and likewise the VM-information


I know, re-iterating this is tedious, but it will avoid unmet
expectations by newcomers from other languages as well as
name clashes with actual immutability implementations (how should
we name those, then)?

With apologies

[1]: http://typeocaml.com/2015/01/02/immutable/
[2]: a) http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/pairs.html "Pairs are not mutable"
     b) http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html
[3]: https://wiki.haskell.org/A_brief_introduction_to_Haskell#Immutable_declarations
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object

On 03.03.2016, at 03:19, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:

> Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of System to project The Trunk:
> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/System-eem.803.mcz
> ==================== Summary ====================
> Name: System-eem.803
> Author: eem
> Time: 2 March 2016, 7:18:21.713694 pm
> UUID: 934ce776-0717-469b-8818-300954393791
> Ancestors: System-bf.802
> Add getters that answer whether the VM supports immutability or multiple bytecode sets.
> =============== Diff against System-bf.802 ===============
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: SmalltalkImage>>supportsImmutability (in category 'system attributes') -----
> + supportsImmutability
> + 	"Answer whether the VM observes the per-object immutability flag and consequently
> + 	 aborts writes to inst vars of, and fails primitives that attempt to write, to immutable objects."
> + 	"SmalltalkImage current supportsImmutability"
> + 
> + 	^(self vmParameterAt: 65)
> + 		ifNil: [false]
> + 		ifNotNil:
> + 			[:param| "In older VMs this is a boolean reflecting MULTIPLE_BYTECODE_SETS"
> + 			 param isInteger "In newer VMs it is a set of integer flags, bit 1 of which is IMMUTABILITY"
> + 				ifTrue: [param anyMask: 2]
> + 				ifFalse: [false]]!
> Item was added:
> + ----- Method: SmalltalkImage>>supportsMultipleBytecodeSets (in category 'system attributes') -----
> + supportsMultipleBytecodeSets
> + 	"Answer whether the VM supports multiple bytecodeSets."
> + 	"SmalltalkImage current supportsMultipleBytecodeSets"
> + 
> + 	^(self vmParameterAt: 65)
> + 		ifNil: [false]
> + 		ifNotNil:
> + 			[:param| "In older VMs this is a boolean reflecting MULTIPLE_BYTECODE_SETS"
> + 			 param isInteger "In newer VMs it is a set of integer flags, bit 0 of which is MULTIPLE_BYTECODE_SETS"
> + 				ifTrue: [param anyMask: 1]
> + 				ifFalse: [param]]!

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list