Re: Lexical implementation work

At 11:11 PM + 1/28/02, Nicholas Clark wrote: >On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:37:24PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: >> I think we're going to switch over to some sort of key creation op, but I'm >> not sure at the moment. Constant keys are easy, of course--they can be >> thrown up into the constant

Re: Lexical implementation work

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 12:37:24PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > I think we're going to switch over to some sort of key creation op, but I'm > not sure at the moment. Constant keys are easy, of course--they can be > thrown up into the constants section, built at compile-time. Do constants with p

Re: Lexical implementation work

At 03:03 PM 11/12/2001 -0500, Michael L Maraist wrote: > From the above, the only uses I can see for declaring "my $foo as int" is to >set flags (or utilize different vtables) to enforce integerness, and to say >to the optimizer that it's ok to use a primitive integer if the block >contained a div

Re: Lexical implementation work

At 10:10 PM 11/13/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: >QUESTIONS! > >Who owns the bytecode format? How do I propose changes? Nobody in particular at the moment, and note your change proposals to the list. >I need >a "scope definition" section. Each scope is assigned a per-module >id. I'm not sure what

Re: Lexical implementation work

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 01:11:54PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >Correction (and please correct this correction if I'm wrong): > >An INTVAL should never get a /native/ pointer in it. However, when we do > >relitave or absolute jumps in parrot code, the destination is an INTVAL. Is this really g

RE: Lexical implementation work

At 04:12 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote: >On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > At 01:39 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > > >Dan Sugalski: > > >Of course. Random question only very tangentially related to this: is > > >INTVAL (and thus the I registers) supposed to be big en

Re: Lexical implementation work

Dan Sugalski wrote: > Nope, not stone tablet at all. More a sketch than anything else, > since I'm not sure yet of all the things Larry's got in store. Ok. I've made some more progress. There's a crude picture of some of the internals at The lexical stuff

Re: Lexical implementation work

On Friday 09 November 2001 03:36 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote: > >    Do we want non-PMC lexical support? > > Nope, I wasn't going to bother. All variables are PMCs. The int/string/num > things are for internal speed hacks. But can't a compiler generate one of these "internal hacks"? My thoughts are

RE: Lexical implementation work

Jason Gloudon # On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:57:15PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: # # > You get the idea? And as for multidimensional stuff, # what's wrong with: # > # > fetchlex P1, "@lol" # > fetchary P2, P1, 1 # > fetchary P3, P2, 2 # > #... # # Consider (from exegesis 2): # # my int

Re: Lexical implementation work

On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:57:15PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > You get the idea? And as for multidimensional stuff, what's wrong with: > > fetchlex P1, "@lol" > fetchary P2, P1, 1 > fetchary P3, P2, 2 > #... Consider (from exegesis 2): my int @hit_count is dim(100,366,24

RE: Lexical implementation work

Dan Sugalski: # At 01:39 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: # >Dan Sugalski: # ># At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: # ># >3. We've adopted a register machine architecture to # ># >reduce push/pop stack traffic. Register save/load # ># >traffic is similar, but not nearly as bad.

RE: Lexical implementation work

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 01:39 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > >Dan Sugalski: > >Of course. Random question only very tangentially related to this: is > >INTVAL (and thus the I registers) supposed to be big enough to hold a > >pointer? > INTVAL shouldn't ever

RE: Lexical implementation work

At 01:39 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: >Dan Sugalski: ># At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: ># >3. We've adopted a register machine architecture to ># >reduce push/pop stack traffic. Register save/load ># >traffic is similar, but not nearly as bad. ># > ># >Do we want t

RE: Lexical implementation work

Dan Sugalski: # At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: # >There are a number of decisions to make about lexicals # >and the current PDD is pretty slim. So, IMHO, the place # >to start is with the PDD. Anybody have any more thoughts # >on the interface? Dan? Is this stone tablet stuff yet? # #

Re: Lexical implementation work

At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: >There are a number of decisions to make about lexicals >and the current PDD is pretty slim. So, IMHO, the place >to start is with the PDD. Anybody have any more thoughts >on the interface? Dan? Is this stone tablet stuff yet? Nope, not stone tablet at