Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:43 PM +0200 7/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, here's a really, really evil idea. (And yes, bluntly, it's
triggered by the pie-thon bytecode translator's needs) I need a
stack,
Do you? I've converted all stack stuff at compile
At 7:43 PM +0200 7/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, here's a really, really evil idea. (And yes, bluntly, it's
triggered by the pie-thon bytecode translator's needs) I need a
stack,
Do you? I've converted all stack stuff at compile time, till now. I
don
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, here's a really, really evil idea. (And yes, bluntly, it's
> triggered by the pie-thon bytecode translator's needs) I need a
> stack,
Do you? I've converted all stack stuff at compile time, till now. I
don't see the point, why this might not work for
Okay, here's a really, really evil idea. (And yes, bluntly, it's
triggered by the pie-thon bytecode translator's needs) I need a
stack, and one that's faster than our current stack which, while
snappy for what it does, is still burdened by generality. I also need
a stack that's generally not ve
