[self-interest] VM crashing, expected behavior?

[ungar at mac.com]

PS: Full block closures would be great, and we wanted to do it. But the students wanted to graduate, and Sun cancelled the project.
I needed to pay the mortgage.


On Aug 16, 2012, at 5:29 PM, ungar at mac.com wrote:

> Looking at your original example, it seems clear to me that the process with the activation that creates the block finishes
> while the block is running. That's why (I suspect) you get the crash.
> We check for *entering* a nonlifo block, but your example likely enters the block while its home is alive, then the delay
> gives the home time to go away.
> 
> - David
> 
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Am 14.08.2012 um 23:15 schrieb ungar at mac.com:
> > 
> >> Self does not support non-lifo blocks. This should be an error, not a crash.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Aug 14, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Do you think that this code
> >>> 
> >>> (message copy receiver: [
> >>> times delay: 300.
> >>> benchmarks measurePerformance.
> >>> ] Selector: 'value') fork resume.
> >>> 
> >>> should crash the VM?
> > 
> > So, this is a non-lifo as it refers to 'times' and 'benchmarks'?
> > would 
> > 
> > [ | :myGlobals | 
> > myGlobals delay: 300.
> > myGlobals measurePerformance.
> > ] value: globals
> > 
> > be non-lifo?
> > 
> 
> No, this should be OK.
> 
> > Best
> > -Tobias
> > 
> > PS: what about re-introducing full block closures?
> > 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.selflanguage.org/pipermail/self-interest/attachments/20120816/1eb78ec6/attachment.html>