Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm seriously investigating the possibility of changing IV and NV to something
> more readable.
>
> (But for those of you who are following language-dev, don't tell 'em because
> then they'll think they've won. ;)
Some time ago I sugested that NV was a bad name, because in early Perl 5
is was there to contrast with PV - ie an SV contains numeric or string
value (or both). When SVs started to hold IVs too, the name became
misleading - it would have made more sense of rename it FV or something.
Also, I think that IV needs splitting into two or more different
types.
There is the type that specifically fits in the Parrot integer registers
and is recognised by parrot ops;
Then there are all the other places within perl and parrot which
need to contain integers or pointers, which may or may not be the same
type or size as the register ints.
