At 01:03 PM 8/5/00 -0400, John Tobey wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and it will require
> > jumping through a lot of hoops because of perl's profligate use of dynamic
> > polymorphing. If it's needed, well, we'll do it, but I'd rather put the
> > effort elsewhere to start.
>
>Not to be rude, but the effort is not yours to put. Except for your
>own effort, that is. Although I'll read your every suggestion with
>due consideration, I (and, I imagine, most of us here) will code
>exactly that which interests me.
Unfortunately it *is* my effort. Passing data as data, rather than as
pointers to data, makes some rather major impacts on how the various bits
of perl need to be designed. It may complicate whatever method is chosen to
handle perl's lexical stack, the symbol table, and opcodes, at the very least.
I'm not obligated to come up with the internals implementation. I'm not
even obligated to do the design work for the internals. I *am* obligated to
come up with a coherent design for the internals. That's my job.
I think I need to post a good intro, since I've been assuming everyone
(including me) knows what's going on, and I don't think that's the case.
(Heck, it may well be me that's wrong. Wouldn't be the first time)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
