Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:21 PM +0200 4/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We toss the keyed variants for everything but get and set. And... we move *all* the operator functions out of the vtable and into the MMD system. All of it. Math, logical ops, bit ops... the works. All that

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We toss the keyed variants for everything but get and set. And... we > move *all* the operator functions out of the vtable and into the MMD > system. All of it. Math, logical ops, bit ops... the works. All > that's left are the gets, sets, and meta-informa

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Aaron Sherman
Ok, nuff said. I think there are slightly too many definitions that we're not agreeing on (though, I suspect if we ironed those out, we'd be in violent agreement). As for INT/PMC thing I'm pretty sure all of my concerns come down to: compilers can really screw each other over, but then we knew

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:51 PM -0400 4/28/04, Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 12:33, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 12:21 PM -0400 4/28/04, Aaron Sherman wrote: >Since we're specifically talking about Perl here (and probably not Perl >5, since its overloading model is baroque and probably has to be managed >b

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 12:33, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 12:21 PM -0400 4/28/04, Aaron Sherman wrote: > >Since we're specifically talking about Perl here (and probably not Perl > >5, since its overloading model is baroque and probably has to be managed > >by the compiler, not Parrot) > > Actually pe

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:21 PM -0400 4/28/04, Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 12:06, Dan Sugalski wrote: I'm not sure of the hit--an MMD version of the perl base scalar PMCs is faster than the non-mmd version in some tests. I fully expect that can't hold, though. And no, there's no way around it--if we

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 12:06, Dan Sugalski wrote: > I'm not sure of the hit--an MMD version of the perl base scalar PMCs > is faster than the non-mmd version in some tests. I fully expect that > can't hold, though. And no, there's no way around it--if we do this > everyone pays. (OTOH, all perl

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:59 AM -0400 4/28/04, Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:33, Dan Sugalski wrote: We toss the keyed variants for everything but get and set. And... we move *all* the operator functions out of the vtable and into the MMD system. [...] Comments? Only one question. What's the perfor

Re: keyed vtables and mmd

2004-04-28 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 11:33, Dan Sugalski wrote: > We toss the keyed variants for everything but get and set. And... we > move *all* the operator functions out of the vtable and into the MMD > system. [...] > Comments? Only one question. What's the performance hit likely to be and is there any