Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from September 2001
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >avoid using a "call" opcode all over the place, right? > > No, more a "try and leave the bytecode sections read-only" hack. > > Imagine, if you will, building LWP and bytecode compiling it. It uses > private opcodes 1024-1160. Then you later build, say, MIME::Lite, which > uses opcodes 1024-1090. I was referring to the practice of having compilation units create private opcodes. Am I wrong in thinking this is a new technique deserving of an excuse for existence? > Up until now, I didn't know, so consider yourself the first to find out. :) I'm honored... > * Integer, String, and Number registers 0-x are used to pass parameters > when the compiler calls routines. s/compiler/interpreter/, right? > * Subs may have variable number, or unknown number, of PMC parameters. > (Basically Parrot variables) They may *not* take a variable or unknown > number of integer, string, or number parameters. I don't understand this restriction. Won't it make implementing variadic functions more difficult? > Don't consider this list final until I've had a chance to run it past > Larry. He might be thinking of allowing prototypes to change, or spring > into existance relatively late in the game. (In which case we probably get > a call_in_list and call_in_registers form of sub call) Or those other language designers you're wooing, right? The prototype stuff sounds pretty Perl specific. -samThread Previous | Thread Next