On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Jonathan Sillito wrote: > > Why not just leave the old behaviour? > IMHO[1]: > - Make a new class based on Continuations > - invokecc and such are based on it
[snip] > [1] I don't know too much about all the HL stuff. But anyway, some > languages might be quite fine with the current implementation (which > seems to be more lightweight, when it just comes to calling a plain > subroutine) Have a look at P6Cs usage for exceptions and in regexen > code. I know, its not final, but its a working implementation. Some less > fancy HL might be just fine with the way how its working currently. > > Or I'm totally wrong here ;-) Here is another suggestion (I think I mentioned this in another email) we could support a few different types of continuations. The simplest continuation could be just a saved return address (i.e. an opcode_t*). This would be roughly as lightweight as the current implementation, I think. What do you think? I am thinking it would be easier to have one calling convention then callees know what to expect. invokecc .LiteContinuation # or something ... One more thing Leo (excuse my ignorance) why is there a "stack calling convention" in imcc? How does it relate to calling subs via the "calling convention"? -- Jonathan Sillito
