Re: exception handlers & calling conventions

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:45:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Technically an excpetion is kind of an object with some info (TODO) and > the exception handler is a (limited) continuation: > > pmclass Exception_Handler extends Continuation ... # see classes/ Neat. > catch_label: >

Re: [perl #37760] [TODO] imcc - item lists (a C job)

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 04:25:03AM -0800, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > There are about 10 such lists around, which could be unified easily. The > current code is suboptimal anyway, because resizing is done by 1 mostly. > Some of the lists allocate ptr space and items, which can also be > simplified a

Re: Subs may not contain dynamic call info, ever (was Re: r10151)

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:54:54AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > >You keep confusing static and dynamic call information. > > While at static objects like subroutine PMCs - there is some code > around that is setting properties on .Sub objects

Re: Ideas on :outer and closures - 2nd try

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
Well, I had the right idea, but at a key moment I zigged when I should have zagged. So let's try this again. On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > outer_sub - (the static sub PMC info) can't refer to :o

Ideas on :outer and closures

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > outer_sub - (the static sub PMC info) can't refer to :outer because the > :outer can be a closure too. There are many incarnations of the :outer > then. Therefore the implementation needs sub->ctx (currently and IMHO). The docs

Re: Subs may not contain dynamic call info, ever (was Re: r10151)

2005-11-27 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:49:18PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > On Nov 23, 2005, at 19:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > >You keep confusing static and dynamic call information. > > Not confusing actually, maybe abusing the static sub structure by > adding a dynamic field 'ctx' - yes. Point taken