> > But before that. Alan Bateman said to me that Loom project has much > simpler implementation to what you want. >
Ahh! Another good reason why I'm seriously considering just going to the beach and returning once Loom is shipped! :-) Can't do that. JIT have to update underlying hash table to correctly > execute application. > I don't think I suggested altering the write path, only the reads would be optimized away. My understanding is those won't update the hash table or have other side effects. Cheers, Eirik.
