Thomas Sandlaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The opcodes for 'callmethod_MMD_3_sig "func"' and 'callmethod_MMD_n
> "func", n' are simply not there yet, right?
No. The problem is that at function call time there is no indication
that a MMD subroutine should be called. So Parrot will just do a full
Thomas Sandlaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I missing something, but the only thing I've figured out so far is that
> Parrot uses ternary MMD for its builtin binary ops like ADD, MUL, OR, etc.
actually binary, dispatch is based on (left, right) operands.
> They are ternary to prevent a final
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:45, Thomas Sandlaà wrote:
> Sorry, if this is the wrong list for discussing these Parrot details.
Yeah, you really want to be in p6i, not p6l. These guys think a Parrot's
just a bird that says funny things and sits on a pirate's shoulder ;-)
PS: http://cpan.uwinnipeg.ca/
HaloO Aaron,
you wrote:
Um... I think you're thinking of operator overloading, which in Parrot
actually does use the MMD facility under the hood, but MMD is nominally
a separate facility. You should glance at the PDDs, as they have far
more detail than I'm aware of.
You mean the ones in the docs/pd
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 10:34, Thomas Sandlaà wrote:
> Am I missing something, but the only thing I've figured out so far is that
> Parrot uses ternary MMD for its builtin binary ops like ADD, MUL, OR, etc.
> They are ternary to prevent a final copy or conversion of the result to the
> target regist
HaloO Aaron,
you wrote:
Is there any reason at all that 6.0 should have return MMD? I mean, it's
way-the-heck cool and all, but it became a "thing" when Parrot produced
this capability as a by-product of the way MMD was implemented in
conjunction with return continuations that doesn't mean we H
