At 10:10 PM 11/13/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>QUESTIONS!
>
>Who owns the bytecode format? How do I propose changes?
Nobody in particular at the moment, and note your change proposals to
the list.
>I need
>a "scope definition" section. Each scope is assigned a per-module
>id. I'm not sure what info is needed yet, but certainly a size
>and a code ref (opcode address) for the DESTROY sub.
For scopes you'll probably also need a template lexical scratchpad ID.
>The control stack isn't used for much
yet. :)
>and it would simplify my
>code a lot if we combine the frame stack with the control stack.
The control stack is for things the interpreter needs to track. More will
go on it--local() restore information, scope markers (for scope cleanup),
scoped locks, possibly exception handler markers (though I'm not sure about
that yet)--a fair amount of stuff. It would seem appropriate for your frame
information to go on it.
>The only down-side I think will be with hand-coded assembler.
I wouldn't worry too much about the hand-coded stuff.
>Anybody care if I subsume the control stack?
No. Or, rather, use the control stack for what you're doing.
>Lastly, does anybody care if I change how assembler directives
>are registered?
No. I like the leading period directives. It's either that or ALL-UPPERCASE
directives, and that's kind of ugly.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
