On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 09:19:48AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:04:10PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> : Looking at what Chip said though, it would appear that the much cleaner
> : solution I was hoping to find exists and can be found in lex pad stuff,
> : which I n
"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:49:55PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd prefer to reuse something in the engine already for those callbacks.
>If a lightweight callback mechanism, with parameter, doesn't
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:49:55PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'd prefer to reuse something in the engine already for those callbacks.
> >If a lightweight callback mechanism, with parameter, doesn't already
> >exist, then you could either us
"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:52:39PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The trick is to keep references to registers in a way that notices
>when the register set is gone, or alternatively, that keeps the
>re
jeepers I mangled this paragraph
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:31:50AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> What I had in mind, was imitating whatever a closure does to hold onto a
> context chain. I would detail that here except it's not on the top of my
> brain except (1) the point is the imitation-rat
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:52:39PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The trick is to keep references to registers in a way that notices
> >when the register set is gone, or alternatively, that keeps the
> >register set from going away. The latter
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:04:10PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
: Looking at what Chip said though, it would appear that the much cleaner
: solution I was hoping to find exists and can be found in lex pad stuff,
: which I need to go stare at for a bit before replying. :-)
This is tangenti
"Paolo Molaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 01/24/06 Jonathan Worthington wrote:
.NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
They are called managed pointers.
Yes. And now I've misled Parrot folks into mis-naming them managed
references. D'oh.
pointers, but safe.
"Chip Salzenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:11:14AM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
.NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
pointers, but safe. [...]
Making them work on Parrot is no problem. Making them work without
comprimising the s
On 01/24/06 Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> .NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
They are called managed pointers.
> pointers, but safe. What makes them safe is that only certain instructions
> can create them and the pointer value can't be set directly (we can do t
"Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:11:14AM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
.NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
b) Add a v-table flag saying "returning me is forbidden" and checking
that
on any PMCs that get returned. (H
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:11:14AM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> .NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
> b) Add a v-table flag saying "returning me is forbidden" and checking that
> on any PMCs that get returned. (However, there are subtle issues. For
> e
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:11:14AM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> .NET has these managed reference thingies. They're basically like
> pointers, but safe. [...]
>
> Making them work on Parrot is no problem. Making them work without
> comprimising the safety of the VM is harder. Amongst
13 matches
Mail list logo
