Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:35 PM 2/7/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
> >2. Making the implementation of `tie' and `overload' more efficient
('cause
> >it's very slow in Perl 5).
>
> No, not at all. This isn't really a consideration as such. (The vtable
> functions as desinged are inadequate for most overloading, for example)
>
> [...]
>
> >Is this right or am I missing something?
>
> Missing something, as you can see. That's OK, though. The vtable PDD
should
> have made all this stuff clear in the preamble text. I've been assuming
> folks have been following along since the beginning. (And possibly know
> about the other stuff in my head (no, not *that* stuff. The other other
> stuff...))
>
In http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00464.html Nick
Ing-Simmons talks about using vtables to implement 'magic hacks' of Perl 5,
which are ties. He says ``(they are even called vtables in the sources)''.
In http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00494.html Ken
Fox says ``It should be possible to use the dispatch tables to easily
implement overloading because operators should map fairly easily into the
table.''
In the recent
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02376.html David
Mitchell talks about `C-mode' tying and overloading, which is the same I was
thinking about.
I really haven't been following along since the beginning, but I see I'm not
the only one who got the wrong point.
The conclusion I'm reaching is that we're definitely talking about different
things. You are talking about fast opcode dispatching through clever
dispatch tables. I'm talking about using polymorphism to implement tying and
overloading in the low-level. I guess they are different, right?
What I would like to know:
* the things we're talking about are compatible or not?
* can they be built into just one, that makes fast opcode dispatch and easy
tying/overloading?
* can one use another to be implemented?
* what is a vtable after all?
* do all this stuff I wrote even _make_ sense?
- Branden
