On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:53:25 -0500 > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > > On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:20:21 Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > 2. Add shift/unshift/push/pop methods to ResizablePMCArray > > > (or one of its superclasses) in Parrot > > > > This is my preference. It feels like a role. > > This is my preference as well -- done in r26670. > This should make things much simpler for NQP code . . . > > Thanks! > > Pm > > Do you remember the discussion two years ago [1] about eliminating the > user stack in favor of arrays? Chip made the following comment [2]: > > From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: User stack: Worthwhile? > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:46:42 -0800 > > Is there any other client of the user stack that can't be easily > replaced by some kind of *Array? It'd be nice to lop off such a > low-value feature. > > The response (including yours) was generally in favor of chucking this > vestige of 1960's computer architecture, but nobody took up the mantle. > What is the current thinking on this? > > -- Bob Rogers > http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/ > > [1] > http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.internals/browse_thread/thread/578d53dcbf0204cf/05971e618c6957d2 > > [2] > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/2006/02/msg33138.html > my current thinking agrees with chip's and patrick's. the closer to stackless we are, the better we handle threading. if you want to kill it, i will not stand in your way.
~jerry
