Thanks for the response. On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:23, Melvin Smith wrote: [reordered]
> If you want to take a whack at it before I get to it, take a look at the > global variable ops, although they aren't perfect. I just stacked them > on top of the Hash PMC that we already had. If you think you won't get to it for a while then I would be happy to give it a stab. > I started on a simple implementation. I decided to just use the > PerlHash that we already have. > > I planned to add a new stack for lexical scopes, making it COW, > and the newpad op would simply create a new Hash PMC and push > it onto that stack, and vice-versa. [...] > The fun part after you get the skeleton working is copying the > pads on write for closures, etc. Do you think a linked list approach (like 'struct Stash' for globals) where each scope has a link to it's parent scope would be both simpler and sufficient? We could give the Parrot_Context struct a pointer to the current scope, and inside of the invoke method of the Closure (Sub?) PMC I think we would just need to set the interpreter's pointer to the correct scope, something like: interpreter->ctx.current_scope = SELF->scope; What do you think? Is there something I am misunderstanding about how closures work? > On this line, we need to discuss the symbol table format for > the bytecode. I played around a bit but nothing I wish to commit. I haven't given this any thought yet ... -- Jonathan Sillito
