Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Ben Coman wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Am 07.01.2012 um 07:04 schrieb Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com>:
I had thought that the two assignments of 'xxx' to (x) and (y) would
result in different objects, but they turn out to be identical. It
is like the compiler has noticed that they are equal and chosen to
make them identical.
That is indeed what's happening.
You can verify this by executing each line separately.
Thanks Bert. Doing that is insightful. Interestingly the result is
different with numbers. Where strings assigned in separate
executions are not
identical, numbers assigned in separate executions are identical - at
lower values. For example, number 12345678 has (x) and (y) identical
but with
123456789 they are not. I then expected those number literals to be
a different class, but both numbers inspect as SmallIntegers. btw
this is with
That's impossible, SmallIntegers with the same value are identical.
Levente
Pharo-1.3-13315-cog2522.
Anyway, my curiosity is satisfied for now.
cheers, Ben
I could have sworn I observed that behaviour last night, with the
difference between the 8th and 9th digit, being SmallIntegers in both
cases, but this morning I can't replicate it. Now the difference is
between the 9th and 10th digits, which makes more sense they become
LargePositiveIntegers with the 10th digit. I put it down to fatigue
from being up too late. (though I would have sworn...)
As a final thing. For some naive reason I thought that the SmallIntegers
would stop at 64k. Is it platform dependent on whether the CPU is
16/32/64 bit ?
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
