Re: MMD and PASM subs (was: keyed vtables and mmd)

2004-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:42 AM -0400 4/29/04, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables. Here is a proof of concept to avoid it: Oh, right, and... this is really, really evil. Which is why I just put it in. :) And just to add

Re: MMD and PASM subs (was: keyed vtables and mmd)

2004-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables. Here is a proof of concept to avoid it: Oh, right, and... this is really, really evil. Which is why I just put it in. :) -- Dan --

Re: MMD and PASM subs (was: keyed vtables and mmd)

2004-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:55 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay, we've a long-running discussion between Leo and I about the keyed variants for all the binary vtable entries. Another long running discussion: do we need duplicate mmd tables. Dunno. Don't care, really