At 12:48 PM 7/5/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >At 10:39 PM -0400 7/3/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >>At 09:51 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote: >>>I know there was some talk about this extra "address" parameter recently, >>>but i'm not sure what the upshot of it is. Right now, tcc is complaining >>>loudly because the init functions for parrotsub and parrotcoroutine don't >>>match the init_method_t type in the _vtable structure. >>> >>>What's the deal here? >> >>I made the PMC init method take an int argument sometime around >>January, and at the time we agreed it would be useful to have polymorphic >>constructors. Then it sort of silently got removed. > >Not quite silently, but yeah, pretty close. It got yanked because, while >they address a real problem (and one I missed) an int's not quite up to >the task. I'm not sure what is--I'm thinking property hashes, but they >seem pretty heavyweight. > >I like passing in init a parameter. We just need more than an int. :(
Then I propose we wait until Parrot is in beta to continue down this optimization path. By that time we will have a much better idea of what makes sense. -Melvin
