I believe befunge is the example I was thinking of.
On Mar 4, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 14:46, Will Coleda wrote:
We already have at least one language implementation that used to
work just fine using the stack, but has been crippled with various
depreca
On Mar 1, 2006, at 14:46, Will Coleda wrote:
We already have at least one language implementation that used to work
just fine using the stack, but has been crippled with various
deprecations over the last few years.
If you are speaking of forth here, then no. That was broken by design.
It j
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:46:42AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 12:57:24AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2006, at 0:23, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > >>[...]
> > >I've just committed an update (r11722) that eliminates PGE's
> > >use of save/restore opcodes
I don't use the user stack, myself, but one advantage that the
current implementation has over "just using a PMC" is that you don't
have to go out and get the global PMC you're storing things in.
We already have at least one language implementation that used to
work just fine using the stac
From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:46:42 -0800
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 12:57:24AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> That's indeed an (indirect) answer to the 'do we really need it' part ;)
Is there any other client of the user stack that can't be eas
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 12:57:24AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 0:23, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >>[...]
> >I've just committed an update (r11722) that eliminates PGE's
> >use of save/restore opcodes in the code it generates -- indeed,
> >PGE no longer has any save or restor
