Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter

[Benjamin Stuhl]

--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >   DS> Ah. I've always wanted to do that with tied
> hashes. Okay, even
> >   DS> more reason to pass the data in! (We're going to
> end up with a
> >   DS> WANT register by the time we're done...)
> >
> >that is not a bad idea. we could allocate a PMC register
> (e.g. #31)
> >permanently to store WANT info (in a hash i assume like
> the RFC
> >implies).
> 
> I don't think I'd want to soak up a PMC register that
> way. Maybe an integer 
> one.

Maybe not a general purpose PMC register, but what about a
special one? Since the proposal was to lazily update it, it
doesn't need to be part of the standard register frame.
Besides, I though we were going with having a few "special"
PMC registers (PL_sv_yes, PL_sv_no, PL_sv_undef, etc.) to
reduce the size of the constants section?

-- BKS

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com