From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:45:24 +0800
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 11:05 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800
>
>. . .
>
>It also seems to me that with
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 11:05 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I
don't
>see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:21:25 +0100
Bob Rogers wrote:
> Actually, I would have assumed that the user stack operated more or less
> independently of the call chain, but I see it is kept in the context
> structure and not the interpreter
Bob Rogers wrote:
Actually, I would have assumed that the user stack operated more or less
independently of the call chain, but I see it is kept in the context
structure and not the interpreter. Hmmm . . .
I think so too. It's just in the context as it was there, w/o further
recent discussio
From: Steve Gunnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:02:37 +0800
Hi,
I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I don't
see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping a
handler or action or whatever that it didn't place there.
Hi,
I'm sitting here thinking about cross language calls and what I don't
see anywhere is a prohibition that stops a context from popping a
handler or action or whatever that it didn't place there.
Is there an intent to prohibit or restrict this kind of behaviour?
It also seems to me that with c
This is an attempt to summarize my thinking about the instruction
interface to dynamic binding and its interaction with the other
dynamically-scoped bits of Parrot. I am hoping to get feedback before
diving further into the implementation details.
Please let me know what you think. TIA,
