<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi Jaromir, On 1/22/2023 10:18 AM, Jaromir Matas via Cuis-dev wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:PH7PR12MB7987B2B5F4EC567CF0C6F3FFEECB9@PH7PR12MB7987.namprd12.prod.outlook.com" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Juan, <o:p> </o:p> Here’s a test illustrating the situation described below, resulting in executing unwind blocks of a process considered terminated by the current termination semantics. I assume it’s no harm to keep this semantics; an alternative would be to consider a process terminated iff the suspended context is nil or all remaining contexts have their pc atEnd. The downside of this approach would be that a process found not terminated could not be simply resumed to finish because there might be dangerous contexts with pc=nil which could crash the vm when run. <o:p> </o:p> Best, -- Jaromír Matas<o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> I guess you are the first person to realize of this. I think that changing the semantics of #isTerminated or any other such method is likely to break existing code, and create a compatibility problem. Maybe we'd need to add a new possible state to Process, and new testing selector(s). WRT the code in the message below, it looks OK AFAIK. It is now at GitHub. Thanks!!! <blockquote cite="mid:PH7PR12MB7987B2B5F4EC567CF0C6F3FFEECB9@PH7PR12MB7987.namprd12.prod.outlook.com" type="cite"> <div class="WordSection1"> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(225, 225, 225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;"> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st">Jaromir Matas via Cuis-dev</a> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 17:12 To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:juan@cuis.st">Juan Vuletich</a>; <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:cuis-dev@lists.cuis.st"> Discussion of Cuis Smalltalk</a> Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mail@jaromir.net">Jaromir Matas</a> Subject: Re: [Cuis-dev] Follow-up: #terminate and #suspend update </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Juan,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks for your message.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m enclosing a test for isTerminated documenting the current semantics.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> A few notes here:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) I’ve added MethodContext>>#endpc as an analogue to MethodContext>>#startpc but could you please doublecheck it’s ok? I could have used a temp var assignment "endpc := self closure startpc + self closure size - 1" instead but it seemed a bit awkward.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) Currently we consider contexts with pc=nil as a sign of terminated processes. In theory a context with pc=nil can still contain a relevant unexecuted code, e.g. unwind blocks: <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Example: if you terminate a “terminated” process with an unexecuted unwind block(s) and pc=nil in the suspended context (or below in the sender chain) the unwind block(s) will get executed – which may be perfectly appropriate but sounds a bit unexpected. I know these are wildly hypothetical scenarios but I just wanted to make you aware.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best,<o:p></o:p> Jaromir<o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Juan Vuletich cuis.st github.com/jvuletich researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3 twitter.com/JuanVuletich</pre> </body> </html>