I think, I can answer a few of these questions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Allen Short [mailto:washort@;twistedmatrix.com] > > The ops described in PDD 6 and docs/parrot_assembly.pod for > scratchpads appear to be subtly different from the ones actually in > core.ops. In particular, i was led astray by the docs referring to the > "newpad" op and core.ops implementing "new_pad". which is it supposed > to be? =)
Neither, Dan Sugalski owes us an update, which should be coming soon ... > I started investigating scratchpads because I'm interested in > improving the scheme compiler. I'd agree with Sean O'Rourke's comments > (http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-internals@;perl.org/msg12722.html) > -- the current ops seem too limited; in particular, I dont see how one > would save a scratchpad with a function definition, or modify the > toplevel scratchpad. Looking beyond Scheme, it appears to me that > other languages would need more flexible handling of scoping as well; > Common Lisp, for example, keeps functions in a separate namespace from > other variables. Being new to Parrot hacking, could someone point me > at the rationale for making scratchpads a special case, rather than a > PMC? I am sure they will be a PMC. In fact two different patches have been submitted to make them PMCs, one by me and a better one by Sean O'Rourke. Sean's has not been committed yet, probably because he is waiting for a decision on the more flexible ops by Dan. -- Jonathan Sillito
