Re: PMC registry

2003-12-31 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >register Px >unregister Px Done. Its using a custom hash with the ref count being the value. Tests wanted :) leo

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-30 Thread Melvin Smith
At 07:38 PM 12/28/2003 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 7:19 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 3:27 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it doesn't help, when a PMC gets regi

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-29 Thread Piers Cawley
Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Presumably this all means that Parrot will be able to due ruby-esque > iteration over all objects (if I may use the term PMC to refer to an > object ;-)) that have been created? ITYM "Smalltalkesque". HTH, HAND. > -- > Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 7:19 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 3:27 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it doesn't help, when a PMC gets registered multiple times - its always the same address

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Matt Fowles
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 3:27 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it doesn't help, when a PMC gets registered multiple times - its always the same address - removing it multiple times is fine, the f

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Sam Vilain
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:27, Matt Fowles wrote; > Why not just have the hash value be an integer, then each register > increments it and each unregister decrements it. With the entry > getting removed if it hits 0. Apologies for spamming the thread with mention of Set::Object again :) But i

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Sam Vilain
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:14, Leopold Toetsch wrote; > I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me > thinks, it doesn't help, when a PMC gets registered multiple times > - its always the same address - removing it multiple times is > fine, the first succeeds, following fa

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:27 PM -0500 12/28/03, Matt Fowles wrote: Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's fine for this to be a simple array for now. I realize that means O(n) access times, I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it doesn't help, when

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Matt Fowles
Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's fine for this to be a simple array for now. I realize that means O(n) access times, I'd use a custom hash with the PMC address being the key[1]. /Me thinks, it doesn't help, when a PMC gets registered multiple times - its

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:14 PM +0100 12/28/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay, now that we're getting more into extensions and NCI access, we need to add an extra array to the root set of the interpreter. ... (A PMC may be in the registry multiple times, and if so each unregis

Re: PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, now that we're getting more into extensions and NCI access, we > need to add an extra array to the root set of the interpreter. > ... (A PMC may be in the registry multiple times, and if so > each unregister removes *one* reference) > It's fine for

PMC registry

2003-12-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
sters, system stack, and namespaces hanging off the interpreter). This thing is the "External PMC Registry", and it's fine for it to be a plain array. We need to add two ops: register Px unregister Px which add and remove one reference to whatever PMC is in Px to the registry.