On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 15:46, Gopal V wrote: > > Ruby needs to call the missing_method method (if I remember correctly). > > So if "foo" doesn't exist, it would be good to be able to override > > callmethods behavior and make it call missing_method. > > like I said , the compiler designer can put that explicitly in the > generated code ... You don't actually need instructions to do that. > Also the explicit generation might prove to be better to handle all > the quirks future languages might encounter....
Sure, there is only one problem with that. I don't know if it's a real problem or not. But if I write a library in ruby that depends on the missing_method method it will not be usable from other languages, since those languages doesn't call missing_method if the method they try to call doesn't exist. Of course, in real life I don't think that's a problem because I haven't seen much use of missing_method. Also, having a instruction would be faster which of course is more fun :) > My interest here is to obtain a clear and fast way to call stuff for > static compiled languages. :) But the really interesting thing about parrot is that it is primarily made for very dynamic languages. Personally I think it's quite ok if C# is a little bit slower under parrot than under mono/dotgnu/MS.NET, as long as the dynamic languages are as fast or faster than they are now. /Erik -- Erik B�gfors | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Supporter of free software | GSM +46 733 279 273 fingerprint: 6666 A85B 95D3 D26B 296B 6C60 4F32 2C0B 693D 6E32
