Re: Proposed PDD format for Perl6's "assembly language standard"

2001-05-22 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:27 AM 5/22/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > From a design perspective, are they (bytecodes and opcodes) different, or is >it simply a structure (linear vs tree, for instance) distinction? Would >the above cover the execution engine, the data dumper/restorer, or both? They're definitel

Re: Proposed PDD format for Perl6's "assembly language standard"

2001-05-22 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 06:36 PM 5/21/2001 -0700, A. C. Yardley wrote: >What I propose is perl6-internals (or, per Dan, "the bytecode >definition group") adopt the above format for the PDDs on certain >aspects of Perl6's interpreter (i.e., again, per Dan, "assembly >language standard, ..."). We'll need to work from a

Re: Proposed PDD format for Perl6's "assembly language standard"

2001-05-22 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Monday 21 May 2001 21:36, A. C. Yardley wrote: > B> > This section gives detals on how the instruction is laid out in the > bytecode of a class file. It shows a table listing the opcode for > the instruction, as well as any additional parameters that follow > the opcode in bytecode. > > B