At 9:58 AM -0800 12/9/02, Steve Fink wrote:
On Dec-09, David Robins wrote:
If I may be so bold as to say it, maybe the PMC design shouldn't be closed
just yet.
I don't think it is. I may be wrong, but I think the only thing Dan
was trying to close was the internal structure of PMCs, not the exact
implementations.
Right. Up until recently I'd still waffled over whether the current
PMC/vtable setup was the right way to go or not. While I'm still
unsure, I've decided we're going to go this way, and so I've started
(pending Leo's pending PMC rework) opening up the structure to the
bytecode.
I think there are already a few reorganizations and
rethinks queued up. We really can't freeze the hierarchy or
implementations until we can implement perl6 with them, plus somebody
needs to go through and try to implement another language. Maybe
something like Ruby would work well... :-)
Right now, we can't even call non-vtable methods on PMCs.
That's on the list to get defined and implemented. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
