On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 07:17:06PM +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Given the inner functions we could presumable generate the decode
functions (c.f. xsubpp)
This is something I'm very much in favour of: it doesn't matter if
vtables mean we have loads of little functions, because we can
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 11:05:31AM -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
Who would ever _want_ to write 'sv = pp_gvsv(aTHX_ gv);'?
Read comp.lang.perl.moderated for a few weeks and look at the XS
questions. In the past month, we've had people needing to know how
to get the caller and how to bless a
At 11:05 AM 6/14/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
--- Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see where shadow functions are really necessary
-
after all, no one has ever complained that you can't do
pp_chomp(sv); /* or pp_add(sv1,
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:12:35 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
'Kay, here's a question to ponder. Should the op dispatch loop handle
argument decoding, or should that be left to the opcode functions?
Are you talking about lazy vs. normal evaluation?
Lisp knows basically two modes, normal evaluation,
At 01:13 PM 6/13/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:12:35 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
'Kay, here's a question to ponder. Should the op dispatch loop handle
argument decoding, or should that be left to the opcode functions?
Are you talking about lazy vs. normal evaluation?
Benjamin Stuhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see where shadow functions are really necessary -
after all, no one has ever complained that you can't do
pp_chomp(sv); /* or pp_add(sv1, sv2), for that matter */
in Perl 5.
Yes we did. And note the doop.c file which is part answer
to the
At 03:40 PM 6/12/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 06:12:35PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At the moment I'm leaning towards the functions doing their own decoding,
as it seems likely to be faster. (Though we'd be duplicating the decoding
logic everywhere, and bigger's
'Kay, here's a question to ponder. Should the op dispatch loop handle
argument decoding, or should that be left to the opcode functions?
The upside to the functions handling the decoding is they can special-case
it. makeref (a hypothetical make a reference to a PMC operator), for
example,
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'Kay, here's a question to ponder. Should the op dispatch
loop handle
argument decoding, or should that be left to the opcode
functions?
[good analysis of trade-off's snipped]
At the moment I'm leaning towards the functions doing
their own
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 06:12:35PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At the moment I'm leaning towards the functions doing their own decoding,
as it seems likely to be faster. (Though we'd be duplicating the decoding
logic everywhere, and bigger's reasonably bad) Possibly mandating shadow
10 matches
Mail list logo
