On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 03:12:03PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Are you also interested in functions on scalars that happen to be in pp*.c
> rather than sv.c?
Definitely; I want an idea of what Perl 5 expects to be able to do with
scalars and aggregates so that I know what Perl 6 ought to expect
> "NI" == Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NI> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> but indexing directly into a stack frame is effectively a register
>> window. the problem is that you need to do an indirection through the
>> window base for every access and that i
A. C. Yardley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How about you take sv.c? And I'll take av.c and hv.c? Sound good?
okay, its a deal!
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ACY's taking a look into this too, so you may want to co-ordinate to avoid
> clashing. I've also told him what I'd like: some
Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. When you call deep enough to fall off the end of the large register
>>file an expensive "system call" is needed to save some registers
>>at the other end to memory and "wrap", and then again when you
>>come "back" to the now-in-memory reg
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "NI" == Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> NI> "We" need to decide where a perl6 sub's local variables are going
> NI> to live (in the recursive case) - if we need a "stack" anyway it
> NI> may make sense for VM to have ways of indexi
