On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:32:44PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
>
> > Scott Walters wrote:
> >
> > > Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
> > > storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating these
> > > would not be a ba
Mike,
Was very happy to see your message. People don't often agree with
me. I'm not very agreeable.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Scott Walters wrote:
>
> > Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
> > storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating t
Scott Walters wrote:
> Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
> storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating these
> would not be a bad thing. The typical case still remains, that
> arrays will contained mixtures of all datatypes.
Yep, I agree. Thus, array.pmc wo
Mike,
Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating these
would not be a bad thing. The typical case still remains, that
arrays will contained mixtures of all datatypes.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> This patch
> This patch is rather questionable, and thus I did not commit it
> directly. However, it illustrates a point I wanted to make.
Doh! Hopefully my previous post will make a bit more sense now. :)
Mike Lambert
Index: array.pmc
===
This patch is rather questionable, and thus I did not commit it
directly. However, it illustrates a point I wanted to make.
As mentioned in my recent PARROT QUESTIONS email, a lot of the clutter in
the PMC aggregates can be removed with the use of redirecting functions.
The below patch reduces t
