At 04:44 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> It was a thought, yes.
>
> >> While it would make method lookup faster, it's only benefit over the
> current
> >> method is faster lookup of the first call to a method but at the cost
> >> of extra processing at startup time to cache methods that may never be
> used.
>
>DS> Good point. Never mind--not worth it. Clearing out the cached methods
>makes
>DS> sense, rebuilding the cache doesn't. If someone really wants, I
>suppose we
>DS> could provide a method to allow this somehow. I can see front-loading the
>DS> expense being worth it occasionally. I think.
>
>I was hoping that the vtbls would be self-operating. Without much need
>to work hard on them.
>
>Well, we could preload the vtbl with a _replace_me_ stub to do the
>cacheing.
I think vtables and method dispatch aren't good matches.
That's not to say we can't store various data bits in the object, and leave
the optree alone. (Which is probably a good idea--we should make the optree
read-only, for threadsafing reasons)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
