Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 8:10 PM +0200 4/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[ unused scalar vtables in aggregates ]
Aren't the relevant vtable slots for aggregates unused anyway?
Only because we've not gotten around to writing the code. :)
Do you want to reserve these just for implementing perl's scalar context of arrays or hashes, or is there more behind the scene?
More behind the scenes. (Though that's a good reason too) The problem is that we've got quite a few cases where we can't tell at compile time what the heck's going on with a PMC, so there's no good way to know if it's an aggregate or a scalar. If we overload the vtable entries we're going to get into trouble.
Separate functions, separate entries. I already made the mistake of trying to overload some of the other entries in the past. We've fixed that up and I'd rather not do that again.
Yeah, having hyper versions of the ops does blow out the opcode list a lot, but the alternative is to end up with a half-assed system that'll have the math guys down on my head. I'd as soon skip that one. :) I'm OK with putting limitations on it--pmc-only, for example, so we don't have to deal with S/I/N versions of the hyper ops.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
