At 7:06 PM +0100 7/21/02, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <20020721174150$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Scott Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I propose that keyed access do exactly eight things:
>>
>> * fetch a PMC using a key
>> * fetch a integer using a key
>> * fetch a number using a key
>> * fetch a string using a key
>> * store PMC
>> * store int
>> * store num
>> * store string
>>
>> To add to a PMC, the PMC would be fetched, then a seperate instruction
>> would add to it. This returns keys to their roots of merely optimizing
>> access to deeply stored items.
>
>You may well be right. I am certainly concerned about the amount of
>cut and paste duplication involved at the moment.
Sounds like a good case for adding some smarts to the pmc and opcode
preprocessor.
>Your argument is orthogonal to my question though - even if we decide
>to restrict keyed access to just the set opcode we still have to decide
>how to encode that keyed access in the bytecode.
Keys are either constant key structs, constant integers, string
registers, or integer registers. Encoding shouldn't be any different
than any other constant or register. Jeff's got an opcode function
naming scheme--I've not browsed back far enough in the discussion to
see if it's considered insufficient or not.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
