Re: deferred vtable assignment?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 03:02 PM 4/26/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > >What if the decision in-vtable or not-in-vtable is deferred?
> >
> > That's doable, I think, though I can see some issues.
>
>
>how about a two-tiered vtable, where a single high bit, if set,
>indicates extended handling, or at least consultation of
>a different table.
>
>I guess that amounts to the same as having a set number of
>"extended" entries that indicate check elsewhere to decide
>what do do now.

Yeah, I think this might be what we do, but there are still issues. I'd 
rather know at runtime (or, rather, after BEGIN time) what I've got handy 
for vtable entries, since it's at that point that the vtable messiness will 
be finalized as the bytecode hits the optimizer.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk