"Jonathan Sillito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean O'Rourke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> I think I didn't look through the patch queue carefully enough ;). I
>> gather that it's accepted practice (or something like that) to use an
>> array of pointers instead of links to avoid having to do a traversal when
>> accessing outer scopes, so that's why I did things this way. Out of
>> curiosity, how were you planning to handle e.g. recursive functions?
>
> Umm, I am not sure ...
>
>> Unless I'm misreading your patch, it always sets the parent static scope
>> to the parent dynamic scope, which often isn't what one wants.
>
> I see. So just to see if I understand things correctly, consider an example
> in some made up language:
>
> function get_counter(increment) {
> var last = 0
>
> function counter() {
> last = last + increment
> println last
> }
>
> return counter
> }
[...]
> get_counter:
> new_pad 1
Doesn't this violate the 'caller saves' principle, making it hard to
do tail call optimization? Would it make sense to move the creation of
a new pad into the Sub's invoke method?
[...]
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
