Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> >>Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables.
> Dunno. Don't care, really--I was throwing in two tables as > proof-of-concept just to get things going. As there can be just one entry for a (func, left, right) triple we don't need two tables. This all simplifies ... > ... We also don't need full > tables either--there are a number of games we can play to compact the > tables a lot. ... such compression too. Only one table to work on. The table lookup is simpler too. BTW: which of these opcodes: ops/object.ops:=item B<makemmd>(in PMC, in INT) ops/object.ops:=item B<mmdfunc>(in INT, in PMC, in PMC, in PMC) ops/object.ops:=item B<mmddispatch>(out PMC, in INT, in PMC, in PMC) ops/pmc.ops:=item B<mmdvtregister>(in INT, in INT, in INT, in PMC) ops/pmc.ops:=item B<mmdvtfind>(out PMC, in INT, in INT, in INT) should actually be implemented? Seems to exist some redundancy ;) leo
