Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from April 2001
At 03:02 PM 4/26/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > >What if the decision in-vtable or not-in-vtable is deferred?
> >
> > That's doable, I think, though I can see some issues.
>
>
>how about a two-tiered vtable, where a single high bit, if set,
>indicates extended handling, or at least consultation of
>a different table.
>
>I guess that amounts to the same as having a set number of
>"extended" entries that indicate check elsewhere to decide
>what do do now.
Yeah, I think this might be what we do, but there are still issues. I'd
rather know at runtime (or, rather, after BEGIN time) what I've got handy
for vtable entries, since it's at that point that the vtable messiness will
be finalized as the bytecode hits the optimizer.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next