At 10:55 PM 8/6/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > But, if we toss refcounts, and split GC cleanup and
> > end of scope actions anyway, we need to have a mechanism to hoist things
> > out of the current scope.
>
>Why say hoist when we can say return? I can think of several ways of
>returning values that don't require the caller to allocate a binding for
>the return value. Variants of the existing perl 5 stack push would work
>fine. We could also use a special "register" variable that return values
>are shoved into.
I'm not proposing any perl-level syntax. I'm just saying that, if we toss
refcount gc we'll need an alternate method of handling end-of-scope
cleanup, one that allows us to inject things into an outer level of scope
somehow. I don't much care if we make that visible in any sort of generic
way to perl code. That's not my decision.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
