Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why "new_pad *INT*"? > Michal Wallace asked for some clarification about "new_pad", the opcode > that creates a new lexical scratchpad. He thought that, 9 times out of > 10 you would want to create a new pad at the next lower depth from the > current pad, but there's no way to automagically do that. Sean O'Rourke > explained that, generally the compiler should keep track of the lexical > depth of the current thing being compiled, so it shouldn't be a problem > to use the right depth anyway. > > Those of us writing pure interpreters would still like to be able to do > "new_pad -1", but I think we'll have to implement it ourselves.
"new_pad -1" works and worked a long time. languages/scheme has used this trick before I did the switch to .Closure some weeks ago. There were some issues that there was no "new_pad -1, P7" and the sequence "push_pad P7; new_pad -1" needed a double pop_pad, but in principle it worked well. bye boe -- Juergen Boemmels [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fachbereich Physik Tel: ++49-(0)631-205-2817 Universitaet Kaiserslautern Fax: ++49-(0)631-205-3906 PGP Key fingerprint = 9F 56 54 3D 45 C1 32 6F 23 F6 C7 2F 85 93 DD 47
