On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Brian McCallister <bri...@skife.org> wrote:
> It looks like fields were added to apl_vm_spec to allow for bytecode > caching on the actual spec. I think this is a bad idea. Specs are > short-lived, typically stack-allocated, structs which exist to group a > bunch of arguments together. Ah, I see now why it was done -- to get the inline blocks working. Clever. I can see how this fits with the spec, but I'd still prefer to find a different way to pass that information. One way, though I do not like it much more, is to pass the bytecode in as the filename and look for lua bytecode's initial bytes: 1b 4c 75 61 51 00 ( <escape> Lua <null> ) -- this is kind of stinky overloading, but not *totally* insane. Not sure where to lean on this... it is part of the spec, as used -- "here is a script literal" -- looking for thoughts. -Brian
