On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:54AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> >You keep confusing static and dynamic call information.
>
> While at static objects like subroutine PMCs - there is some code
> around that is setting properties on .Sub objects
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> >You keep confusing static and dynamic call information.
>
> Not confusing actually, maybe abusing the static sub structure by
> adding a dynamic field 'ctx' - yes.
Point taken
On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
You keep confusing static and dynamic call information.
While at static objects like subroutine PMCs - there is some code
around that is setting properties on .Sub objects.
$ find . -name '*.imc' -o -name '*.pir' | xargs grep -w setprop
At
On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:14:40PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
implement Sub.get_caller() method; test
You keep confusing static and dynamic call information.
Not confusing actually, maybe abusing the static sub structure by
adding a d
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:14:40PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> implement Sub.get_caller() method; test
You keep confusing static and dynamic call information.
Like I've said (repeatedly :-)), rule #1 of call info is:
Subs don't have callers.
Call frames have callers.
Therefore, this co
