Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Leo's @ANON implementation of
> your scheme works great for me (I have no problem wrapping that around
> my code.) All this does raise the question of garbage collection for
> packfile objects; is there any?
Not yet. We basically have two kinds of dynam
On Aug-30, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I've been watching this thread with some bemusement -- I've got to
> admit, I don't see the problem here.
>
> I'm not sure what the point of passing in parameters to the
> compilation is. (Not that I don't see the point of having changeable
> settings for compil
At 5:16 PM +0200 8/31/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
... The inability to compile and return truly anonymous subs in PIR
is, by itself, enough to warrant the change.
Ok. What about:
.sub @ANON
.end
Still runs into the issue of not returning a sub PMC to use.
I can see not wanting t
Dan Sugalski wrote:
... The inability to
compile and return truly anonymous subs in PIR is, by itself, enough to
warrant the change.
Ok. What about:
.sub @ANON
.end
What else is needed for anoymous subs? How do we get at the subroutine
object, if the anon sub is compiled statically?
leo
At 9:56 AM +0200 8/31/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:09 PM +0200 8/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PIR
compiler needs compilation units. If the compiler is PASM, it'll compile
whatever is fed to it.
We can have an implied compilation unit if things are properly set
up. I t
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:09 PM +0200 8/30/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PIR
compiler needs compilation units. If the compiler is PASM, it'll compile
whatever is fed to it.
We can have an implied compilation unit if things are properly set up. I
think that's not unreasonable if we can work out t
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ passing arguments to compilers ]
> ... So why does the compile op exist?
Your concerns are all valid. The compiler interface needs extension as
well as some cleanup. This is true for compilers written in C (loadable
as shared libs) and for compilers writte
On Aug-27, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> >On Aug-26, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> >>.sub @regex_at_foo_imc_line_4711 # e.g.
>
> >Yes, this illustrates what I was really getting at. My compiler can
> >certainly take a subroutine name (or file and line number, or whatever)
> >to use t
On Aug-26, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
>
> >I can store some global counter that makes it generate different sub
> >names each time, but that seems a bit hackish given that I don't really
> >want the subroutine to be globally visible anyway; I'm just using one so
> >that I can use P
Steve Fink wrote:
On Aug-26, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
.sub @regex_at_foo_imc_line_4711 # e.g.
Yes, this illustrates what I was really getting at. My compiler can
certainly take a subroutine name (or file and line number, or whatever)
to use to generate the code with, but what is the proper way to
Steve Fink wrote:
Right now, I always compile to the same subroutine name "_regex", and
... But is this safe to rely on, or will
it later become an error to override a global subroutine?
I think yes. Overriding a subroutine should be possible.
I can store some global counter that makes it generate
On Aug-22, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
> > language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
> > that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
> > tim
At 7:13 AM -0700 8/23/04, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that get
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits a
At 6:41 AM -0700 8/23/04, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Hmmm...
Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main()
(if there was one)?
Nope, it shouldn't. main() would go into the symbol table and if you
wanted to invoke it you'd yank it out and do so.
And, if there wasn't one, wouldn't
Hmmm...
Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main()
(if there was one)? And, if there wasn't one, wouldn't the C compiler
want to return a sub that raised an exception?
Regards,
-- Gregor
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits an C opcode. But what
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
> language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
> that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
> time it runs until it hits an C opcode. But wha
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits an C opcode. But what if I want to
return some values from the com
19 matches
Mail list logo
