On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <
stephane.ducasse@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.
This is exactly my point.
No it's not. Your point was to raise two straw-=man arguments: 1. that Marcus and Jorge would have to deal with the decompiler (not an issue; the decompiler already deals with optimized caseOf: and the new decompiler will deal with optimized caseOf: just as it'll deal with optimized ifTrue: ifNotNil: et al). 2. that supporting caseOf: in optimized form will delay Opal (not an issue; Opal will optimize certain constructs, this is just one more and won't add a lot of time). So your point appears to be to try and justify removing caseOf: on spurious grounds by spreading FUD. This is so unlike you I'm having a hard time really understanding what's going on. best regards, Eliot
Stef (if you think that I focus on details then I'm certainly an idiot).