Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2011
On 01/20/2011 09:14 PM, David Golden wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM, chromatic<chromatic@wgz.org> wrote:
>> * grabbing the optree *already generated* for the body of the sub
>> * creating a new lexical $self binding in that optree
>> * rummaging through every variable access in that entire optree to find $self,
>> if it exists
>
> This is why I was pondering a "self" keyword. If it could access the
> right reference at runtime you wouldn't need to worry about the
> existing bindings.
>
> Imagine:
>
> * method { ... } somehow marks the subroutine body as a method
> * dispatch to such a marked method doesn't put the invocant in @_
> but puts it "somewhere else" (big hand-waving here)
> * keyword self retrieves invocant from wherever it got put
"wherever" would likely still be the stack, except @_ is populated only
with the elements after the invocant.
The little understanding I have of these matters suggests that arguments
will be passed via the stack no matter what and @_ is then "aliased"
(SV* copy? Too lazy to check.) to the elements since the last pushmark.
If there was a flag to start only after the first element and make the
sp accessible via "self" by some mechanism, that might just do it.
> I leave it to people who know the guts in detail to explain why that
> is doomed to fail. :-)
Yes, it is now up to them :)
Cheers,
Steffen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next