Jeroen Frijters writes: > Etienne Gagnon wrote: > > Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > I would like the vmdata field type then to be VMClass not Object. > > > > I disagree, as it imposes a restriction on what vmData actually > > is. The most obvious implementation of vmData is to be a byte[] > > instance holding the byte of a native pointer to an internal VM > > non-moveable data structure. > > I'm glad to see we agree (although I don't think it's at all obvious > that it should be a byte[], not all VMs use native code).
Eeeh. I can't imagine that either. If there's a strong argument for holding native pointer in a byte[] ? Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
