Hey all,
I'm just starting to get into using pads,
and I'm not sure I understand new_pad.
Specifically, why does it take an int?
It seems to me, that 9 times out of 10,
you're going to want to create a new
pad at the next lower depth than the
one before.
So, two questions:
1. Should there b
Michal Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I definitely need some help understanding this.
Okay, I definitely did a suboptimal job trying to
clarify...
> Here's some python code that defines a closure:
>
> def make_adder(base):
> def adder(x):
>
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> The problem is that when adder() gets returned, it
> needs to remember the enclosing pad. So this needs to
> be
>
> newsub $P1, .Closure, _sub1
>
> which (IIRC) will save the lexical environment in which
> it was created (see closure.pmc), then res
Michal Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Should there be a new_pad that takes
> no arguments to do this, so we don't
> have to keep count manually?
>
> 2. When would you NOT want to use
> new_pad (current_depth+1) ?
Remember, the pad depth reflects lexical scope nesting,
no
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Remember, the pad depth reflects lexical scope nesting,
> not dynamic scoping. So if you mean "current_depth" as
> "current compile-time depth" above, then you're right,
> but the VM would have no way to tell. If you mean
> run-time depth, which the com
