[Pharo-project] could we agree to remove caseOf: and caseOf:otherwise:

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Wed Feb 16 21:10:27 CET 2011


Igor 

my point is how can we migrate from the old compiler to the new one that will probably not support inlining
of caseOf: if we rely or have caseOf: in the old compiler.
If we do not need case of inlining then we can remove it and we can also clean Object.

Stef


On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 16 February 2011 18:15, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Eliot a final question.
>>> So how will you handle OPAL compiler change in Cog?
>>> Do you require that marcus and jorge have to deal with decompiler of
>>> caseOf: in addition to all the rest?
>>> Is it a strong requirement? Because then this is clear that Opal will be
>>> delayed. But may be it is not that important after all.
>>> Just curious.
>> 
>> OPAL is a Smalltalk compiler.  I can therefore assume that it will compile
>> Smalltalk.  caseOf: is valid Smalltalk and so will be compiled by OPAL.
>>  Whether Marcus chooses to optimise caseOf: or not is up to him.
> 
> And this was the question from the beginning of this thread :)
> Except that not all realized that Stef were talking about new compiler (Opal),
> not existing one.
> I am perfectly fine with current state of Compiler.. and it is really
> not worth adding/removing something from it,
> because in Pharo plans to integrate new compiler infrastructure.
> So, it is obvious that any work on old compiler is a waste of time and energy.
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Stef
>>> (if you think that I focus on details then I'm certainly an idiot).
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
> 





More information about the Pharo-project mailing list