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
Hi Juan,
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Juan Vuletich 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
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:
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.orgmailto:
j...@jvuletich.org wrote:
Hi Eliot,
There are several other changes in that package that
Eliot Miranda wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Juan Vuletich j...@jvuletich.org
mailto:j...@jvuletich.org wrote:
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
Eliot
should this fix be applied to pharo?
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2655
Is there a dependency?
Stef
___
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM, stephane ducasse
stephane.duca...@free.frwrote:
Eliot
should this fix be applied to pharo?
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2655
Yes please. Almost everything I'm likely to put in Compiler, Kernel or
System on Squeak 4.1 belongs in all
