On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:05:13PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > On Thursday 03 August 2006 11:18, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > The whole question of packfiles is something I hadn't approached before, > > and now that I have, I wonder: Why does a packfile needs to exist at all > > when compiling into the in-memory interpreter? There are some answers to > > that question I'd accept, but it's still a question that needs answering. > > The trivial answer is that there are a lot of functions where Parrot assumes > it has compiled code available.
But the compiled code wouldn't necessarily have to live in a structure compatible with on-disk storage. But of course such a commonality would simplify things. OK. > > PS: Cage cleaners should detect and possibly correct all that namespace > > pollution. Yuck. > > In the external API, you mean? Isn't there a bug for creating macros to > avoid > prefixing Parrot_ to all internal-only functions? Yes, but that's at least potentially orthogonal: pollution ne inconvenience. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
