At 02:50 PM 9/17/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>
> >> If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it, why not
> >> treat it as a stack of objects, with each object
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it, why not
>> treat it as a stack of objects, with each object "knowing" what to do
>> with itself when popped? Or mor
At 02:06 PM 9/17/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on, where stuff is:
> >
> > * Scope entries
> > * Return addresses for JSRs
> > * Saved individual registers
> > * Local() calls
>
>Dave's Wild+Whacky+Unworkable Suggestion #42:
> Assuming there's one general stack to save "stuff" on, where stuff is:
>
> * Scope entries
> * Return addresses for JSRs
> * Saved individual registers
> * Local() calls
Dave's Wild+Whacky+Unworkable Suggestion #42:
If we have one generic stack with all sorts of things on it,
