At 08:51 PM 8/6/00 +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >This got me thinking about whether it's necessary to define exactly what
> >an SV struct is. The following seems over-specified:
> >
> >
> >Dan's struct that includes thread sync stuff is also over-specified.
> >
> >I think the only thing we have to standardize on is the vtable interface
> >and the flags. This seems like a good thing, at least during early
> >experimentation with perl 6.
>
>
>True. I think just the vtable and flags is the minimal "interface"
>rest of the stuff is just data that access functions mess with (even the
>thread sync stuff).
I'd probably choose vtable pointer and the private data pointer as the two
essential, but the point is well taken anyway.
However, as Chip has pointed out in the past, the size of the base scalar
structure (heck, the base structure for variables period) is not the big
memory hog, so it makes sense to take a step back from complete abstraction
and pull the commonly used stuff up to the front.
Once we've an implementation, it'll be interesting to see which assumptions
turn out to get the best performance.
>None the less - it makes sense to have a "straw man" of how the essential
>types will be implemented.
Which was the essential point.
> >It's really a value
> >binding, not the value itself.
>
>Nor is this "base" just for scalars - so apart from the fact it isn't a
>scalar and isn't a value "scalar value" is ideal :-(
Okay, Okay, I was sloppy! :) I was using the p5 term, assuming it'd give
more context for folks to work with. I agree it should be different and
more appropriately named for p6.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
