On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:29, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've done quite a lot of thinking about Parrot's rx_compile op, as I was > > thinking about implementing it. > > Given that rx_compile syntax and semantics aren't really final and > second that compiling a rx takes substantial time, I'd do something like > this: [...] > You can experiment with needed methods, implement new ... > You can subclass the Rx_Compiler, implement it in PIR and what not. > > Eventually for gaining the last bit of speed, we could make opcodes for > the methods.
Sounds good. I need to look at the NCI stuff. I was going to skip over that at first and build the default rx compiler (value 0) inline and focus on the FSA-to-bytecode implementation, but if you think that that's going to need up-front engineering, I'll look at it now (well, now as in when I get home tonight). -- â 781-324-3772 â [EMAIL PROTECTED] â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
