Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>We need the ability to layer PMCs. Nothing new, we need something of
>>>the sort for transparent read-only-ness and probably thread-safety
>>
>> What about the current implemen
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
William Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was going to submit this as a patch, but I ended up with a conflict,
and Dan threatened he wouldn't apply it anyway, so I'll just post it
here for comment. Feel free to apply any or all of it. I would be very
happy to hear of a be
> Your answer is about compiling a subroutine that
> does something. What's wrong with the current
wording:
>
> How do I generate a sub call with a
> variable-length parameter list in PIR?
>
> Use unprototyped calls and functions and pass
> as many arguments as you have.
Well, for
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We need the ability to layer PMCs. Nothing new, we need something of
the sort for transparent read-only-ness and probably thread-safety
What about the current implementation [1]:
* PMCs that have read-only variants have the C flag set
*
Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To avoid to go back the slow world of perl5 where many things
> need to be tested before figuring what to do, performancewise,
> there is little choice but to have two versions of each PMC
> class, a fast one that is devoid of property support and anoth
William Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was going to submit this as a patch, but I ended up with a conflict,
> and Dan threatened he wouldn't apply it anyway, so I'll just post it
> here for comment. Feel free to apply any or all of it. I would be very
> happy to hear of a better way to ans
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone mind if I commit this?
The patch is fine.
> ... One thing I'm not sure of, though -- I
> try to behave myself and use Parrot_getenv rather than a plain
> getenv(), but I'm not convinced the API is complete -- Parrot_getenv
> saves back a boolean say
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We need the ability to layer PMCs. Nothing new, we need something of
> the sort for transparent read-only-ness and probably thread-safety
What about the current implementation [1]:
* PMCs that have read-only variants have the C flag set
* the PMC compiler
