July 29, 2019
10:52 a.m.
Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote
If you remove the suspension point (technically, at:put: is also a suspension point, but let's assume it won't be far enough along in the time slice when the first at:put: happens), and set p high enough that the process won't be interrupted by UI thread (when a process is suspended, it is put to the back of the thread, so you'd still see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10), you get the behaviour you originally expected
( 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 2 4 6 8 10 -1 ) well, close enough, anyways ;) Cheers, Henry -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html