Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Matt Diephouse
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "Matt Diephouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:21:32 -0400 Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try the attached patch . . . That *does* work. I haven't applied it because it's not necessarily urgent that Tcl w

Re: Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Bob Rogers
From: "Matt Diephouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:21:32 -0400 Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try the attached patch . . . That *does* work. I haven't applied it because it's not necessarily urgent that Tcl work in trunk. I'm okay with waiting a

Re: Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Matt Diephouse
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Try the attached patch. If it works, then we have a problem, because here's the original comment (which I deleted) that went with this line of code: /* * During interpreter creation there is an initial context * and th

Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:43:28 -0400 From: "Matt Diephouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:56:44 -0400 Unfortunately, this patch breaks Tcl. There seems to be some bug with exceptions. Here's the Tcl used fo

Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Bob Rogers
From: "Matt Diephouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 16:56:44 -0400 Unfortunately, this patch breaks Tcl. There seems to be some bug with exceptions. Here's the Tcl used for this example: proc test {} {uplevel #0 {append}} test Hmm. I seem to have brok

Re: Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-23 Thread Matt Diephouse
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:53:36 +0200 Am Montag, 18. September 2006 03:56 schrieb Bob Rogers: >The attached patch consolidates most of the existing stack-unwinding > code into Continuation:invoke;

Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-18 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 09:00:42PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote: :It is probably true that Perl 6 error handling as currently defined : could be implemented either way. Nope, S04 specifically sez: A C block sees the lexical scope in which it was defined, but its caller is the dynamic locat

Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-18 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:53:36 +0200 Am Montag, 18. September 2006 03:56 schrieb Bob Rogers: >The attached patch consolidates most of the existing stack-unwinding > code into Continuation:invoke; previously, RetContinuation:invoke and

Re: RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-18 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Am Montag, 18. September 2006 03:56 schrieb Bob Rogers: >The attached patch consolidates most of the existing stack-unwinding > code into Continuation:invoke; previously, RetContinuation:invoke and > find_exception_handler also did stack-unwinding, and none of the three > did it quite the same

RFC: Consolidate stack-unwinding code

2006-09-17 Thread Bob Rogers
The attached patch consolidates most of the existing stack-unwinding code into Continuation:invoke; previously, RetContinuation:invoke and find_exception_handler also did stack-unwinding, and none of the three did it quite the same way. Here are the effects: 1. Improved code sharing, a