On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]>wrote:
> How about putting such methods on an Interpreter class? > > that's why I was saying by "reify the VM" > 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 > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
