On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
This is exactly my point.
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.
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.