Beware, most client code should only refer to the visible façade Float and its API. BoxedFloat64 is an implementation detail and is VM dependent. We don't want client code to be VM dependent, do we? I hope those references to BoxedFloat64 are rare.
Hi Nicolas, Of course i agree that making client code dependent on the vm is a bad idea and generally i agree with everything you said. but i do have some experience with using BoxedFloat64 and this experience showed me that relying simply on Float occasionaly just is not posssible (that 'implementation detail' does have an effect on one of my programs). i for one would appreciate it, if BoxedFloat64 would _not_ be hidden behind Float in the source code. werner -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-was-BoxedFloat64-integrated-into-the-image-tp4878411p4879438.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
