On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Is there a reason you went for a deque instead of a stack? I can
> definitely see the need for a _PMC_ deque (unshift on the current
> PerlArray implementation blows), and for an integer _stack_ (regexes), but
> not for an int-only
Is there a reason you went for a deque instead of a stack? I can
definitely see the need for a _PMC_ deque (unshift on the current
PerlArray implementation blows), and for an integer _stack_ (regexes), but
not for an int-only deque. I'm assuming you have a reason for this, which
I have not yet d
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:48:29PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> > I tend to create new PMC classes frequently, and they're a pain to
> > maintain without committing, because you have to touch lots of files
> > to add a PMC, and in ways that are sure to caus
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> I tend to create new PMC classes frequently, and they're a pain to
> maintain without committing, because you have to touch lots of files
> to add a PMC, and in ways that are sure to cause conflicts.
Is one of these an intstack PMC, perchance?
/s
Oh, right. The patch. Here it is.
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -p -u -a -r1.19 .cvsignore
--- .cvsignore 14 Jul 2002 10:25:55 - 1.19
+++ .cvsignore 4 Sep 20
# New Ticket Created by Steve Fink
# Please include the string: [perl #17008]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17008 >
I tend to create new PMC classes frequently, and they're a pain to
maintain without commi
