On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:30:30 -0500, "Bryan C. Warnock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>crossed to -internals
Ok, I removed -language.
>Jan Dubois:
>> Not necessarily; you would have to implement it that way: When you try to
>> open a file and you don't suc
[moved to -internals]
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:44:54 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization attached to
>them. Full refcounting isn't required, however. Also, the vast majority of
>perl variables have no finalization attach
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:18:47 -0300, "Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Alan Burlison wrote:
>> Branden wrote:
>> > Any suggestions?
>> Yes, but none of them polite.
I do think this rudeness is uncalled for.
>> You might do well to study the way perl5 handles these issues.
>
>Perl 5 basically
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:10 +, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How much can we do in the compiler, and how much can we do in the
>interpreter? If we're having cached bytecode, it makes sense to do
>as much optimization as we can in the compiler. If not, we might
>as well brute forc
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:50:44 -0300, "Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Actually I was thinking something like PMCs ($@%) being copy-GCed and
>referred objects (new SomeClass) being refcounted. In this case above, every
>operation would use refcount's, since they're storing objects in PMCs. Wha
