On Monday 03 September 2001 08:06 pm, Sam Tregar wrote: > I think I understand this. What I don't understand is how this relates to > the next section about Parrot's special relationship with strings. If > Parrot has a "string" type and string handling functions, why use a PMC > to implement a string? What does it mean to have a PMC that "implements a > string" and also have a "string type" in Parrot? An opcode may call a vtable method on a PMC that is string manipulation intensive. That vtable code could then use the string registers for efficiency. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dave Mitchell
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Ken Fox
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Uri Guttman
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Simon Cozens
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Sam Tregar
- RE: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Brent Dax
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Uri Guttman
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dan Sugalski
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Nathan Torkington
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Sam Tregar
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Sam Tregar
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Simon Cozens
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dan Sugalski
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Sam Tregar
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Uri Guttman
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dan Sugalski
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Sam Tregar
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dan Sugalski
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter Dan Sugalski