chromatic wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:11, Allison Randal wrote:
load_bytecode is good for runtime loading of PASM/PIR/PBC.
Except for the misleading name.
Oh, you mean the fact that much of the time it's not loading bytecode at
all? It has crossed my mind, but the irritation hasn't been great enough
to make it worth changing the name of an existing opcode that didn't
otherwise need changing.
I wonder if there could be a variant that evaluates the code with the
appropriate compiler, too:
load_{something} 'file', 'compiler_name'
load_{something} 'file', compiler_pmc
Hmmm... a compile-and-runtime version of that could potentially compile
the source to bytecode at compile-time, and then load the bytecode at
runtime.
Not urgent, but there is long-term potential there.
Allison
