Leo~
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:30:18 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Fowles wrote: > > > > Leo~ > > > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:36:20 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >>Matt Fowles wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I do mean context + registers and it can do that. If you keep your > >>>loop-counter in a PMC, then it will be incremented > >> > >>Ok, but having suddenly such a difference between value and reference > >>types would really cause weird behavior. > > > > > > I disagree. This is exactly the sort of distinction that has always > > been annoying novice programmers with most every language. > > Yes of course. But continue that sentence above: weird... depending on > the presence of Continuation, which, by creating a loop from your code, > start preserving your scalar data types. I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Would you mind rewording it for me? > I didn't mention the runtime impact yet. You said already that it's > costy. This would make continuations unusable for backtracking in the > rules/rx engine. The runtime inpact would be comparable to the speed of our previous calls where memory had to be copied off and restored (accept that we only need one of the copies instead of two). I am not saying that this is necessarily the correct solution, but it is a solution that would impose minimal breakage and would not put heavy constraints on the register allocator. One thing that worries me is the need to copy the entire callstack worth of return continuations into full ones when a continuation is created/promoted. This could be optimized for the regex case by taking an initial continuation and thereafter using its copied stack to initialize any newly taken continuations. Which gives me an evil idea. We could allow bytecode to specify that it wanted to start taking full continuations everywhere, but that these would never be used below it on the callstack. Thus the regex engine could do this and not suffer too much efficiency loss for taking new continuations for every backtrack point. Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -???
