Hi Andreas,
Thanks for your review.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
Yes, I did. A few questions:
- Why didn't you recycle prims 186 and 187? They are marked as
"old closure primitives" but I don't think they have ever being used. Seems a bit more to the point than adding two new prim indexes.
Yes I could do this.
- Why indexed prims to begin with? I'd rather have named ones to
start out with because it seems that there is quite some possibility that these prims might be changed again and then we get into troubles with the prim indexes. I would recommend to use named prims until there is a mainstream version of closures and then (if necessary) decide on which prim indexes to use.
Ok I didn't know how to do it so I will make a named primitive
- Is there a reason why these prims aren't shortcut from
bytecodePrimValue? If speed is the main point I'd expect that a quick type check for BlockClosure+primClosureValue outperforms the current implementation by far.
Yes, I didn't know that they were a bytecode for the send of #value and #value: . This imply that I should add the BlockClosure in the special object. For me it will be useful but it will be an other things to push in the image.
It would also take the pressure of requiring an indexed primitive for speed.
Ok I don't know how to make named primitive. If you have time could you briefly explain it.
Thanks
Mth