Well, I think that proper IO would be useful. But I don't think it affects the innards of the execution system greatly >
No, though we will need some more ops - or not. Current io also defines a more or less dummy io PMC (e.g. io.ops:open). This could be a full PMC, with a io_vtable (which could reflect the io stack). The most used operations would be separate opcodes, others could be methods of this io_pmc.
...- is there any reason why parrot (or at least PBC) can't conceptually treat in the same way that C treats IO - just another standard library?
Some times ago, I posted: "[RfC] a scheme for core.ops extending" :)
"Z-code interpreter" is obfuscated shorthand for "dynamic opcode libraries" and "reading foreign bytecode". I regard the first as important, the second as "would be nice". I think Dan rates "reading foreign bytecode" more important than I do.
AFAIK are we not able to directly execute Z-code by just loading a different opcode library. The Z-ops have encoded parameters in them. So we can only load a Z-code interpreter/compiler which then reads the Z-code program which is simple data then, no bytecode. Though it might help, to have some specialized Z-ops for execution, but this falls under above "extending".
Nicholas Clark
leo
