- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

On 27/12/15 13:54, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas wrote: > > but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer > back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), Je je I meant "I regret not being able to answer back as quick as I get some feedback" Cheers, Offray

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Robert, I'm a newbie myself on this community, with near to a year in it, but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), so I don't know myself. I think that communities tend to be different on the way they behave according to on-topic or off-topic views. In the case of the Leo community, is not unusual some kind of public monologue about how to solve some issues, sharing "notes to myself" with all the list. In the case of Pharo/Moose the meta reflection seems better in places like blog post. I found this in my own case while asking questions in the Moose mailing list in long posts where I give a lot of background information and those did take a lot to be answered or where ignored at all. I remember that one meta-question I made to the list was "Am I asking wrong?" and after that I decided to test this combination of long background or panoramic/extra reflexions on blog post with more specific short questions in the respective mailing list or chat channel. I got better feedback in all channels (chat, mailing lists and blog comments) with this combination. See and example here: http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-ini… Hope this helps, Offray On 27/12/15 13:18, Robert Withers wrote: > Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no > need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second > paragraph you censor me. > > Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical > work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone > should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most > sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious > tradition are well-defined models. > > Is the cellular meta-meme acceptable or is also the Mythic meta-meme? > Or are both having no place here? > > This is Smalltalk to me and my practical use of it. It is directly > related to interactive fiction, which was just posted about. I am not > trying to be belligerent, nay defend myself from hypocrisy and secure > my rights, here. > > So which is the acceptable meta-model? > > Regards, > Robert > > Mythic Meta-Meme > > Cell MetaMeme > CryptOCaps > > On 12/27/2015 12:49 PM, Johan Fabry wrote: >> Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. >> >> This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the conversations here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Benâs message (+ Marcusâ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so. >> >> So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all. >> >> Greetings, >> >>> On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers<robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list. >>> >>> I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness. >>> >>> respectfully, >>> robert >>> >> >> ---> Save our in-boxes!http://emailcharter.org <--- >> >> Johan Fabry -http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry >> PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >> >> >

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Johan Fabry

> On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you censor me. You did not completely take into account my sentence. The second part says: "for your spiritual and/or religious point of viewâ. > Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models. I have no opinion on this, this is a design question for your work, and not straightforwardly related to Pharo itself. In my opinion and apparently in the opinion of others as well, this is not a topic for this mailing list. Sending multiple mails to the list about it can be considered bad netiquette. ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Robert Withers

Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you censor me. Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models. Is the cellular meta-meme acceptable or is also the Mythic meta-meme? Or are both having no place here? This is Smalltalk to me and my practical use of it. It is directly related to interactive fiction, which was just posted about. I am not trying to be belligerent, nay defend myself from hypocrisy and secure my rights, here. So which is the acceptable meta-model? Regards, Robert Mythic Meta-Meme Cell MetaMeme CryptOCaps On 12/27/2015 12:49 PM, Johan Fabry wrote: > Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. > > This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the conversations here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Benâs message (+ Marcusâ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so. > > So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all. > > Greetings, > >> On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list. >> >> I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness. >> >> respectfully, >> robert >> > > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- > > Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > >

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Johan Fabry

Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the conversations here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Benâs message (+ Marcusâ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so. So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all. Greetings, > On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list. > > I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness. > > respectfully, > robert > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Robert Withers

I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list. I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness. respectfully, robert On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level, > but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, > (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted > responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail > often hide) > > cheers -ben > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers > <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have always >> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The VM >> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image together, >> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead. >> >> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the >> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form. >> >> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for >> #random. :) >> >> nameste, >> robert >> >> >> -- >> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas): >> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya), >> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita), >> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga), >> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and >> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as >> being death. >> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha) >> >> >> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was >> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy >> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is >> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have >> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:). >> >> cheers, >> robert >> >> --- >> >> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. >> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer >> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am >> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the >> very source of creation. >> >> >> >> >> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, SaÅ¡a JaniÅ¡ka <gour(a)atmarama.com> wrote: >> >> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> Hello Robert, >> >> Good day SaÅ¡a, >> >> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge >> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and >> a good thing too. >> >> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not >> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating. >> >> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and >> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge >> supplants older limited knowledge. >> >> >> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: >> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;) >> >> :-) >> >> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is >> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this >> speculation when you find #new! :-) >> >> Hare hare and Merry Christmas, >> >> Haribol and Happy New Year! >> >> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat! >> >> --- >> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My >> transcendental formâto them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they >> have. >> >> >> -- >> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, >> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the >> transcendent self. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Robert Withers

You know Ben, another option is to shun and ostracize me. Those be well oiled options. Truth. On 12/27/2015 12:01 PM, Robert Withers wrote: > Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality > bothers you but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND > interactive fiction, having just been exposed to what that is. In > addition I am connecting this to an educational process and picture of > some unique areas of Pharo. I don't seem to have a problem nor am I > breaking any "rules" I am aware of unless you have dominion, agency > and possession to be establishing such a rule at this time. If so, I > will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the ancient sources of > psychology and sociology for application to the best damn little > programming environment every other language fails to emulate. > > Once again, my apologies this upsets you. > > Sincerely, > Robert > > On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual >> level, >> but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, >> (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted >> responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail >> often hide) >> >> cheers -ben >> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers >> <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have >>> always >>> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. >>> The VM >>> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image >>> together, >>> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead. >>> >>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it >>> was the >>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form. >>> >>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for >>> #random. :) >>> >>> nameste, >>> robert >>> >>> >>> -- >>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas): >>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya), >>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita), >>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga), >>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and >>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as >>> being death. >>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha) >>> >>> >>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I >>> was >>> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the >>> analogy >>> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa >>> level is >>> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things >>> that have >>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:). >>> >>> cheers, >>> robert >>> >>> --- >>> >>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. >>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer >>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am >>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the >>> very source of creation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, SaÅ¡a JaniÅ¡ka <gour(a)atmarama.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> Hello Robert, >>> >>> Good day SaÅ¡a, >>> >>> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge >>> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and >>> a good thing too. >>> >>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not >>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating. >>> >>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, >>> concentration and >>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge >>> supplants older limited knowledge. >>> >>> >>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: >>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;) >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and >>> that is >>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this >>> speculation when you find #new! :-) >>> >>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas, >>> >>> Haribol and Happy New Year! >>> >>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat! >>> >>> --- >>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating >>> on My >>> transcendental formâto them I carry what they lack, and I preserve >>> what they >>> have. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, >>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on >>> the >>> transcendent self. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Robert Withers

Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction, having just been exposed to what that is. In addition I am connecting this to an educational process and picture of some unique areas of Pharo. I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of unless you have dominion, agency and possession to be establishing such a rule at this time. If so, I will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the ancient sources of psychology and sociology for application to the best damn little programming environment every other language fails to emulate. Once again, my apologies this upsets you. Sincerely, Robert On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level, > but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, > (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted > responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail > often hide) > > cheers -ben > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers > <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have always >> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The VM >> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image together, >> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead. >> >> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the >> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form. >> >> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for >> #random. :) >> >> nameste, >> robert >> >> >> -- >> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas): >> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya), >> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita), >> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga), >> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and >> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as >> being death. >> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha) >> >> >> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was >> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy >> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is >> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have >> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:). >> >> cheers, >> robert >> >> --- >> >> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. >> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer >> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am >> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the >> very source of creation. >> >> >> >> >> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, SaÅ¡a JaniÅ¡ka <gour(a)atmarama.com> wrote: >> >> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: >> >> Hello Robert, >> >> Good day SaÅ¡a, >> >> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge >> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and >> a good thing too. >> >> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not >> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating. >> >> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and >> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge >> supplants older limited knowledge. >> >> >> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: >> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;) >> >> :-) >> >> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is >> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this >> speculation when you find #new! :-) >> >> Hare hare and Merry Christmas, >> >> Haribol and Happy New Year! >> >> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat! >> >> --- >> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My >> transcendental formâto them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they >> have. >> >> >> -- >> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, >> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the >> transcendent self. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

by Ben Coman

Hi Robert, I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level, but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters, (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail often hide) cheers -ben On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have always > thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The VM > is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image together, > through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead. > > I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was the > meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form. > > Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for > #random. :) > > nameste, > robert > > > -- > There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas): > 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya), > 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita), > 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga), > 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and > 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as > being death. > (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha) > > > On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > > I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was > jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy > of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is > there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have > no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:). > > cheers, > robert > > --- > > And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. > Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer > of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am > not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the > very source of creation. > > > > > On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, SaÅ¡a JaniÅ¡ka <gour(a)atmarama.com> wrote: > > On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > Good day SaÅ¡a, > > Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge > sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and > a good thing too. > > Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not > understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating. > > I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and > effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge > supplants older limited knowledge. > > > As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint: > it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;) > > :-) > > Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is > split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this > speculation when you find #new! :-) > > > Hare hare and Merry Christmas, > > Haribol and Happy New Year! > > Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat! > > --- > But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My > transcendental formâto them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they > have. > > > -- > As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist, > whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the > transcendent self. > > > > > > >

Dec. 27, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Block that doesn't leak memory

by ClÃ©ment Bera

There is no way of creating such blocks currently. In fact only non local returns and debugging are problems as remote variables are accessed through an indirection. A lightweight block (to reuse your terms) with no outer context but accesses to remote temporary variables would work fine. The common terminology is as follow: - Blocks are called clean blocks if there are no remote temporary variable access and no outer context references - They're called copying block if there are remote temporary access but still no outer context - They're called full blocks if they have an outer context (One can sometimes distinguish also full and fullcopying blocks, but it does not matter) Pharo supports only full blocks, on the contrary to other smalltalk such as VW. I did a working implementation of clean blocks, as you describe, but I didn't integrate it because I didn't like loosing part of the debugging features. That was years ago I am not sure I can find the code anymore. I can explain the design though as it's pretty straightforward. To implement such blocks, you need to share a fake outerContext between all the clean blocks created in the same method. You can't have nil as an outer context else the VM behaves badly. Instead of the block creation bytecode, you can use the pushLiteral instruction to push the BlockClosure created at compilation time and stored in the literal frame of the method. You can put the bytecode of clean blocks at the end of the bytecode zone of the method, followed by a returnTop instruction at the end (without the return instruction the JIT is confused on where the end of the bytecoded method is). Let me know if you want to implement that I can help. I still think it should be an external library and not in the base Pharo though for debugging purpose. To solve your problem of moving blocks around, it may also be possible to use ephemerons to remove the dependency. Maybe some ephemeron experts can help you there. 2015-12-26 16:47 GMT+01:00 webwarrior <reg(a)webwarrior.ws>: > BlockClosure objects hold reference to object that created them via > outerContext receiver. This can cause memory leaks when moving blocks > around/deepcopying/serializing. > > Is there a way to get "lightweight" block that has empty outerContext (like > when executing code in Playground) or is there another class for such > "lightweight" blocks somewhere? > > Obviously I'm talking about blocks that don't reference variables in > enclosing scope and don't do nonlocal return. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Block-that-doesn-t-leak-memory-tp4868529.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Dec. 27, 2015