Re: globals

2004-09-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently, Parrot_find_global throws and internal_exception, which is IMO not > good. Where? The Parrot_find_global() function returns NULL in failure case. Parrot_get_global() throws a real execption. > I have a patch ready that adds a "void *next" paramet

RE: Globals

2002-02-13 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:05 PM +0100 2/13/02, Angel Faus wrote: >Dan wrote: >>Yep, I've seen their plans. It's less an issue for us, at least as >>far as globals are concerned, since we'll be doing that with >>lexicals. (Python not having lexicals, after all) Globals are a bit >>more interesting, since bytecode-loade

RE: Globals

2002-02-13 Thread Angel Faus
Dan wrote: >Yep, I've seen their plans. It's less an issue for us, at least as >far as globals are concerned, since we'll be doing that with >lexicals. (Python not having lexicals, after all) Globals are a bit >more interesting, since bytecode-loaded modules can't guarantee >global positions, sin

Re: Globals

2002-02-10 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:54 AM -0500 2/10/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >I know globals are still on the todo, but what is the plan for the >operands of these opcodes? I see PMC examples, but will >we also have versions of these for the native int, string and number >Parrot types? Nope, I'm not planning on that. We can a