On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Melvin Smith wrote: > At 09:51 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote: > >I know there was some talk about this extra "address" parameter recently, > >but i'm not sure what the upshot of it is. Right now, tcc is complaining > >loudly because the init functions for parrotsub and parrotcoroutine don't > >match the init_method_t type in the _vtable structure. > > > >What's the deal here? > > I made the PMC init method take an int argument sometime around > January, and at the time we agreed it would be useful to have polymorphic > constructors. Then it sort of silently got removed. > > I suppose the patch was done around the same time I commited > the sub/coroutine PMCs, which would explain why they got out of sync. > > Passing an optional arg to the constructor can possibly save us cycles > in the long run, for examples, the PMCs that need to know how to size > themselves. Unless we do lazy allocation, aggregates usually preallocate > at construction time, then resize later. For languages other than Perl > that might need a "struct" type, it makes sense to request the correct > allocation up front. The size could be bytes, elements, or kilometers. > It doesn't need to be just size, as in subs/coroutines. > > In any case, it wasn't doing any harm, so I'm not sure why it got > removed.
It got removed because it wasn't in the spec... Dan directed that we replace it with a version of init that accepts a PMC argument (init_pmc_method_t) that can be used to send in initial size or whatever else you can dream up. - D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
