Dan~
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:23:36 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Okay, aesthetics and making up for a flaw in the implementation of how IMCC tracks opcodes and registers.
Neither of those are sufficient, individually or together.
It feels to me like you are dismissing Leo's arguments a little too lightly here. I find his logic fairly convincing...
No, I'm not dismissing this stuff lightly. Leo's point to me earlier is dead-ion correct -- screwing around with the design before everything is specified and we have a working implementation is premature optimization. And screwing around with stuff that works when there's stuff that doesn't is misdirected effort.
The calling conventions and code surrounding them will *not* change now. When all the sub stuff, and the things that depend on it, are fully specified and implemented... *then* we can consider changes. Until then, things stand the way they are.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
