How about putting such methods on an Interpreter class? On 2011-04-26, at 14:35, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
> Not using the receiver is indeed misleading. I thought it simply flushes the > cache for a particular class > > Alexandre > > > On 26 Apr 2011, at 06:34, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> Hi. As far as I can see, >> >> Behavior >> flushCache >> "Tell the interpreter to remove the contents of its method lookup cache, >> if it has >> one. Essential. See Object documentation whatIsAPrimitive." >> >> <primitive: 89> >> self primitiveFailed >> >> >> And primitive 89 does nothing in particular with the receiver (the class in >> this case). In both, InterpreterVM and Cog, the WHOLE cache is flushed, >> there is NOTHING related to the receiver class. Of course, that's at least >> what it looks for me (please tell me if I am wrong). >> So...if this is the case, wouldn't make sense to move it elsewhere? like >> Smalltalk flushCache or Smalltalk vm flushCache (and it is a good moment to >> reify the VM). So after we can do: Smalltalk vm version. Smalltlak vm >> flushCache, Smalltalk vm parameterAt: , etc.... >> >> If you don't like doing "Smalltalk vm" then we can create a VM class with >> all class methods, or a singleton and use #current or a singleton and put it >> in Smalltalk globals...etc >> >> We will need to fix a couple of senders, thus. >> >> What do you think? For me is really confusing, and you don't understand it >> until you see the primitive implementation. >> >> Cheers >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >
