Jerome Vouillon writes: >On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:22:56PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote: >> At 06:25 PM 7/31/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote: >> >Closures >> > >> > A subroutine must have access to the scratchpads of all the >> > englobing blocks. As the scratchpads are linked, it is sufficient >> > to add a pointer to the immediately englobing scratchpads to the >> > closure (Sub class). >> >> And they need to be COW, as closures have access to their >> own copies of lexicals. I asked Jonathan to reuse the stack code >> I had already written because it was using the same semantics >> with COW as control and user stacks. > >I'm confused here. In Jonathan's code, the stack is COW, not the >scratchpads. If instead of using stacks you make each scratchpad >contains a pointer to its parent, there is no need to copy anything: >several scratchpads can then share the same parent.
1) Our stacks are being reworked to be tree-based, so multiple children can point to the same parent. >By the way, I don't understand how you intend to implement subroutine >invocation. Are you going to push the caller scratchpad stack on a Neither do I, really. :( -Melvin Smith IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
