At 1:10 PM -0600 8/12/02, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
>Dan, some time ago you mentioned that you were preparing a position doc
>on issues raised in the 'maybe-PATCH: sub/continuation/dlsym/coroutine
>clean-up' thread. Are you nearly ready with that doc? Does this patch
>(i.e. a scratchpad pmc) fit int
At 08:14 PM 8/12/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > >4) Parrot_Coroutine's 'init' is not longer used and can go away, I guess
> > >I could remove it in a future patch ... ok so that's not a question
> >
> > I wish this wouldn't go away. I think passing t
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >4) Parrot_Coroutine's 'init' is not longer used and can go away, I guess
> >I could remove it in a future patch ... ok so that's not a question
>
> I wish this wouldn't go away. I think passing the constructor argument
> for any PMC is a good optimizatio
At 01:10 PM 8/12/2002 -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
>1) The Parrot_Sub struct in sub.h has its own user_stack and
>control_stack. Why is this necessary?
Probably an artifact of my failed experiments. :)
Originally Dan said subs would need their own stacks. Either way,
they should be part of Parr
Dan, some time ago you mentioned that you were preparing a position doc
on issues raised in the 'maybe-PATCH: sub/continuation/dlsym/coroutine
clean-up' thread. Are you nearly ready with that doc? Does this patch
(i.e. a scratchpad pmc) fit into what you have in mind?
Sorry to be harassing you a
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #16087]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=16087 >
The main purpose of this patch is to give scratchpads a pointer to their
parent pad
