At 02:50 PM 9/17/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>
> >> If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it, why not
> >> treat it as a stack of objects, with each object
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it, why not
>> treat it as a stack of objects, with each object "knowing" what to do
>> with itself when popped? Or mor
At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on, where stuff is:
> >
> > * Scope entries
> > * Return addresses for JSRs
> > * Saved individual registers
> > * Local() calls
>
>Dave's Wild+Whacky+Unworkable Suggestion #42:
> Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on, where stuff is:
>
> * Scope entries
> * Return addresses for JSRs
> * Saved individual registers
> * Local() calls
Dave's Wild+Whacky+Unworkable Suggestion #42:
If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it,
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I'm currently working on the stack system for Parrot.
> I've got the
> following issue here.
>
> Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on,
> where stuff is:
Out of curiousity, why only one stack? Perl 5 has at least
four or five tha
So, I'm currently working on the stack system for Parrot. I've got the
following issue here.
Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on, where stuff is:
* Scope entries
* Return addresses for JSRs
* Saved individual registers
* Local() calls
Should plain "return"s at
