Leopold Toetsch wrote: > So first: > - do we keep these opcodes? > If yes some permutations are missing. > - if no,´ we should either not include experimental.ops in the default > opcode set or move it to dynops. I have not used them yet, but I think that they can be useful. Has anyone else except Leo and Dan used them?
> For the rest of the opcodes in that file (gcd, rand) I don't think, that > these should be opcodes. Both gcd and rand are e.g. supported in the GMP > library too. The limited range of the existing opcodes and missing PMC > variants precludes better implementations. Going with PMCs and vtables > too seems like overkill to me. > I think, we need to make such functionality available as library > functions. Please also remember that each opcode gets multiplicated into > every runcore we have, with the whole function body duplicated. > > I'm thinking of putting these functions into e.g. ext/math.c and make it > available as: > > math = get_namespace ["math"] > gcd = math."gcd"(...) > > that is a NCI call with a given namespace (which should of course be > available and organized a bit :) Sounds like a task for me. I'll have a look at it. > leo
