Slava, I noticed how read-write locals are implemented as opposed to read-only variables; a read-write variable value is boxed inside a length 1 array and a read-only variable value is stored directly on the retain stack.
So, we have a choice of read-only or read-write. Why did you make the read-only variation at all and not have them all be read-write? My guess is that since read-only are slightly more effecient to access, you provided a choice; but I'm not sure so I'm asking. :-) I can see that the implementation would be a little simpler if only read-write were supported; i.e. there's special case code for ro and rw. Also, the ! syntax for rw would go away. Just wondering what you think about this tradeoff; i.e. simpler implementation and semantics at the cost of everything getting boxed. I actually like it the way it is, but was just curious about your opinion on this. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
