From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:59:05 -0500
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 08:00:40PM -0700, Bob Rogers via RT wrote:
> Of course, if cloning works the same as newclosure than we don't
> need an explicit newclosure for the examples given, because
> assignment already makes a clone.
>
> Assignment seems to do assign_pmc, which for a closure invokes the Sub
> method (there is no Closure method). Needless to say, Sub:assign_pmc
> does nothing special to capture the current context; if that is NULL,
> then "autoclose" takes over when the thing is called.
You're _completely_ missing my point. If we follow my proposal
to modify Parrot or code generation such that a capture operation
is performed for closures at the beginning of every outer sub
invocation, then by the time we get to an assign operation a
closure would _already_ have its current context captured, so
only a simple clone is needed (which is what assign normally
does -- it makes a copy of whatever is being assigned).
That's true. And if that was your point, I did indeed miss it. But, as
I quoted you:
. . . if cloning works the same as newclosure than we don't need
an explicit newclosure . . .
Which seems to say something entirely different. So I thought I should
point out that cloning does *not* work the same as newclosure. (And I
still don't understand the *point* of cloning a closure.)
And again, under my proposal I've been saying (apparently
ineffectively) that "autoclose" would be gone entirely, and
invoking a Closure that hasn't already had its context captured
(i.e, outer_ctx is NULL) will throw an exception. In other
words, there's no chance that "autoclose takes over when the
thing is called".
Pm
The paragraph before the one I quoted started with "At present ...", so
I assumed you were still talking about the current implementation.
Maybe we should both get some sleep.
-- Bob
