Dan Sugalski wrote:
> And pointless. Let's just rename it to Parrot_Interp everywhere.
I've submitted a patch for this already.
--
Gordon Henriksen
IT Manager
ICLUBcentral Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 8:57 AM +0100 1/25/04, Mattia Barbon wrote:
Il Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:42:20 -0500 Gordon Henriksen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 11:28 , Mattia Barbon wrote:
> I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
> interfaces are still using diffe
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 07:08 , Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Speaking of cleaning and uniting, what is with this?
#define bufstart obj.u.b.bufstart
#define buflen obj.u.b.buflen
These are *currently* necessary macros, until the PMC/PObj layout is
Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of cleaning and uniting, what is with this?
> #define bufstart obj.u.b.bufstart
> #define buflen obj.u.b.buflen
These are *currently* necessary macros, until the PMC/PObj layout is
really carved in stones. You had in your proposal a differ
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 03:44 , Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All embedders see is this:
typedef struct Parrot_Interp *Parrot_Interp;
I don't do decisions on embedding or extending interfaces. But it seems
to be the time to decide (and clean/unite)
Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All embedders see is this:
> typedef struct Parrot_Interp *Parrot_Interp;
I don't do decisions on embedding or extending interfaces. But it seems
to be the time to decide (and clean/unite) the current names:
struct Interp* / struct Parrot_Inte
On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 02:28 , Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
interfaces are still using different names for
Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP. Which one is correct?
AFAIK both. Embedding and ex
Il Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:42:20 -0500 Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 11:28 , Mattia Barbon wrote:
>
> > I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
> > interfaces are still using different names for
> > Parrot_Interp/Parrot_I
Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
> interfaces are still using different names for Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP.
> Which one is correct?
AFAIK both. Embedding and extending are to different APIs. The former
has acc
I wrote:
Mattia Barbon wrote:
I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
interfaces are still using different names for
Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP. Which one is correct?
[blahblahblah]
Spoke too soon. Parrot_INTERP looks unnecessary. Parrot_Interp already
has the needed op
On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 11:28 , Mattia Barbon wrote:
I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
interfaces are still using different names for
Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP. Which one is correct?
Mattia,
Both are correct. Sort of. :) Parrot_INTERP is an opaque type,
Hello,
I feel I'm becoming annoying, but: the embedding and extending
interfaces are still using different names for Parrot_Interp/Parrot_INTERP.
Which one is correct?
Thanks!
Mattia
12 matches
Mail list logo