On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:24:19PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:08 PM 9/20/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> >Another approach would be to include a means of defining information
> >that must be included by the file implementing the ops. For example:
>
> I like that approach. I'd say go for
At 01:08 PM 9/20/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
>Another approach would be to include a means of defining information
>that must be included by the file implementing the ops. For example:
>
> HEADER {
> #include
> }
>
>This would then be placed into interp_guts.h. (Possibly surrounded
>by
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:11:42AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Actually the ops=>C conversion was conceived to do exactly what's being
> done now--to abstract out the body of the opcodes so that they could be
> turned into a switch, or turned into generated machine code, or TIL'd. If
> you're
