Re: Object semantics

[Dan Sugalski]

At 11:00 AM +0530 1/6/03, Gopal V wrote:

If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:

 >>  Why would we want to avoid this? It looks exactly like what ought to
 >>  happen.

If you can provide that in-vm , it would be a lot faster ...(hmm, that's
one argument that should convince you ;)

Struct copying? Not a problem. Cloning this sort of thing is the same as cloning off strings. Deeper copies, where we trace the tree, are a bit trickier, but there are vtable entries to do that, so classes can implement things as fast as possible if people need them.

But like I said , I need lots of sticky notes for all the opcodes for
parrot ...(I'm still in "can't remember all opcodes" mode)....

 Just because C# does it doesn't mean that he likes it. :)

To end all further debate --

*) C# has something like this ,

*) I can't see what Dan has in head for parrot ,

IIRC, it's grey and squishy. :)

*) I don't want feature creep into parrot

If you can find a feature that we don't have, I'd be surprised. :) There's not much left out of perl, so there's not much left out of parrot.

*) Our C# -> JVM compiler already has the workarounds for this like:
   invokestatic	"MyStruct" "copyIn__" "(LMyStruct;)LMyStruct;"

I think we can make things a bit easier than that. We should build a good base struct PMC type to build on to make this faster, though.

*) I really don't like valuetypes that much :).

And I don't much like reftypes, so we're even. :)

*) Rhys will be doing most of the design , this is his headache actually :-)

So does that cover all bases ?....

I think so. I'm about ready to get objects formally(ish) defined, but given that I'm in a coffee shop and unconnected now, it might hit the list at the same time this does. (Or before, depending on how the mail queues go...)
--
Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk