On 1 Aug 2002, Jonathan Sillito wrote: > Looks good to me. Couple of quick things, when I applied the patch > locally, it indented the end bracket of the invoke op in core.ops which > breaks ops2c.pl.
That's a bug. > Also the patch removed the yield op from core.ops, was this > intentional? More comments below. Yes. Yield becomes a special case of invoke. > sub it is dealing with. While I am thinking about it, would it make > sense to distinguish between a sub and a closure? A sub would be a > little more efficient in cases where a closure is not needed. Closures aren't really that much more expensive than subs -- just an extra hash (or whatever) for lexicals. And while I could be wrong, I think that subs will _always_ be closures. > > - not integrated with lexicals. Parrot is a fast-moving target nowadays! > > Current discussion on the list makes me wonder if this is still up in > the air a bit. However I would be happy work on this, once I feel like I > understand what the consensus is for lexicals ... Great. I'm as much in the dark consensus-wise as you are, if not more so. I suspect it will come down to a tug-of-war between introspective power (e.g. %MY, caller, etc) and interpreter speed (I'm biased toward the former). /s
