Re: [Fwd: [perl6.internals] Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction]

2005-04-24 Thread Leopold Toetsch
[ CC'ed to list again ] Roger Hale wrote: Leo, I find myself on the horns of a variant of Warnock's dilemma here: Sorry about that. Having done my best to clarify why I think the return context cannot helpfully be attached to either @IN_ARGS nor @OUT_ARGS, the thread has no further response from

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-13 Thread Roger Hale
Bob Rogers wrote: So it sounds like we are all saying the same thing now? Well, two of us at least (with me coming from the peanut gallery)... Leo has his own say, and it's his proposal. regards, Roger

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-12 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:30:32 -0400 Bob Rogers wrote: >From: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:23:41 -0400 > >Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-11 Thread Roger Hale
Bob Rogers wrote: From: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:23:41 -0400 Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> >>>As @ARGS (or @IN_ARGS, @OUT_ARGS) is being stored in the context, and >>>that cont

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:23:41 -0400 Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> >>>As @ARGS (or @IN_ARGS, @OUT_ARGS) is being stored in the context, and >>>that context is defacto th

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-07 Thread Roger Hale
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: As @ARGS (or @IN_ARGS, @OUT_ARGS) is being stored in the context, and that context is defacto the continuation, yes - a tail-call would inherit this information. But as each tail-call supplies a new @ARGS, how can

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-04 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leopold Toetsch wrote: >> >> As @ARGS (or @IN_ARGS, @OUT_ARGS) is being stored in the context, and >> that context is defacto the continuation, yes - a tail-call would >> inherit this information. >> >> leo > But as each tail-call supplies a new @ARGS, how c

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-03 Thread Roger Hale
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: sub foo { want.List ?? (1,2,3) :: 1 } # or some such This information could also be attached to @ARGS. E.g. @ARGS."return_list"(1) Would it be possible to attach it to the continuation? Then in the course of

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-03 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Roger Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > sub foo { want.List ?? (1,2,3) :: 1 } # or some such > > > > This information could also be attached to @ARGS. E.g. > > > > @ARGS."return_list"(1) > Would it be possible to attach it to the continuation? Then in the > cours

Re: [PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-04-03 Thread Roger Hale
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Below inline attached is a scheme for an abstraction layer around calling conventions. Comments welcome, leo > 2.5) return context > > Yesterdays conversation on IRC (yes!) has clearly shown that the > current calling conventions are lacking information about scalar vs > li

[PROPOSAL] calling convention abstraction

2005-03-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Below inline attached is a scheme for an abstraction layer around calling conventions. Comments welcome, leo Parrot Calling Conventions 1) Rational Calling conventions and opcodes (and of course the semantics of these) define the ABI of the Parrot VM. Any change in the ABI creates incompatibili