On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Juan Vuletich <j...@jvuletich.org> wrote:
> Hi Eliot, > > Eliot Miranda wrote: > >> Hi Juan, >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Juan Vuletich <j...@jvuletich.org<mailto: >> j...@jvuletich.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Eliot, >> >> There are several other changes in that package that could >> generate different behavior. Are they correct? They are: >> >> BlockClosure >> value >> used to call primitive 201, now calls 205 >> used to check for zero args, now checks for one (!?) >> >> BlockClosure >> value: >> used to call primitive 202, now calls 205 >> >> BlockClosure >> value:value: >> used to call primitive 203, now calls 205 >> >> BlockClosure >> value:value:value: >> used to call primitive 204, now calls 205 >> >> Primitive 205 was previously only used for >> #value:value:value:value:, so I wonder if this might be a mistake. >> >> >> Quite right, this is a mistake. I was careless copy-pasting the fix >> between them. I've committed fixes to trunk. In the VM these primitive >> numbers all bind to the same primitive so there was no visible effect. >> Thanks for checking! >> >> best >> Eliot >> > > When I integrate stuff in Cuis, I always do my best effort to understand > it! > > Anyway, I see your new version, but in BlockClosure >> value it still does > numArgs ~= 1 ifTrue: [self numArgsError: 1]. > even if the older version (9/3/2008) it checked for zero arguments. Is this > right? If so, what's the rationale? > No rationale there at all. Another mistake. I'm having a bad day /: > > Thanks! > Juan Vuletich > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
