On May 20, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's a compile-time transformation of #future and #future: messages.
> Depending on whether or not the result is used (through some basic
> semantic analysis) the messages are transformed into #futureDo:at:args
> or #futureSend:at:args. FutureNode to performs the necessary
> transformation through the usual emitCodeForFoo:value: messages.
> (Warning: I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the
> Compiler, and so anything I say here might be nonsensical.)
Wow… I would have never implemented it like this.
I even would argue that it is conceptually wrong.
The AST has a one-to-one mapping to the grammar. What is a message
send is a MessageNode, this is even true for ifTrue:, so why would one
not keep it like that?
Optimizations have to be done on another level. Destroying the AST
while generating code is not a good idea!
Marcus
