Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:At 8:10 AM +0100 2/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
*Please* don't. C<classoffset> (and attribute access) should by all means start with 0.
Why?
Simplifies compilers:
newclass P1, "Foo" addattribute P1, "i" findclass I1, "Foo" new P2, I1
classoffset I2, P2
In static cases, where P2 is known to be a C<Foo>, attrib #0 ("i") would be always 0. That is, the C<classoffset> opcode can be omitted in that case.
That's a very rare case, honestly, and since arguably every object is a subclass of the base object class and people will end up sticking attributes and methods into the base object class it's going to happen anyway.
I think I'd rather leave it as a non-zero, non-guaranteed base offset.
> No, it won't. No code should ever assume an absolute offset. That initself's broken.
like t/pmc/objects.t?
I was waiting for you to pull that out. :) Yes, objects.t assumes some evil low-level knowledge of the internals.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
