Michal Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. Should there be a new_pad that takes > no arguments to do this, so we don't > have to keep count manually? > > 2. When would you NOT want to use > new_pad (current_depth+1) ?
Remember, the pad depth reflects lexical scope nesting, not dynamic scoping. So if you mean "current_depth" as "current compile-time depth" above, then you're right, but the VM would have no way to tell. If you mean run-time depth, which the compiler could know about... A top-level sub should not create a new pad at depth + 1, since that would put it inside its caller's lexical scope, which would just be weird. /s
