Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Abstract pmcs should appear in core_pmcs.h and pmctypes.pasm > because one needs them as base pmcs so as to declare > pseudo-registers. This is a prerequisite to add pmc type checking > to imcc.
I don't think that we need the type names of abstract PMCs. > Unlike other pmcs, abstract pmcs have names that are all lower > case, is that deliberate? Yes. > What is the difference between declaring a pmc as C<noinit> or as > C<abstract>? Currently when one is set, the other is also set. C<abstract> is unimplemented. > For sake of some kind of introspection, > it may useful to generate a vtable in the C file generated for an > abstract class albeit with init methods that trigger exception. The C<isa> of derived type shows abstract base types too. That's probably enough. For now, I'd rather not have vtables for these (each unused piece of memory is kind of an overhead). But it could be, that we finally have real C<abstract> base types, that implement some useful functionality on behalf of derived child classes. > stef leo
