On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:55:21AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I agree -- we should separate new from init at some level. I think the
> "new" opcode should still both allocate and initialize, while the
> normal sequence for getting a PMC should become
>
> x = pmc_new(...);
> x->vtable->in
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> > context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> > context. Unfortunately, it doesn't
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> context. Unfortunately, it doesn't know what register it's in until after
> it captures
At 12:34 PM -0700 8/1/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2002, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > sub it is dealing with. While I am thinking about it, would it make
>> sense to distinguish between a sub and a closure? A sub would be a
>> little more efficient in cases where a closure is not needed.
>
On 1 Aug 2002, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> Looks good to me. Couple of quick things, when I applied the patch
> locally, it indented the end bracket of the invoke op in core.ops which
> breaks ops2c.pl.
That's a bug.
> Also the patch removed the yield op from core.ops, was this
> intentional? Mor
This patch implements native extensions and continuations as pmcs. It also
cleans up the existing Sub and Coroutine types, and removes the following
now-obsolete ops:
callco
callcc
capturecc
call
callnative
These are all handled through various uses of "invoke" (see t/pmc/sub.t
for simple exampl
