On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:35:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:23 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 03:07:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > At 01:00 PM 7/7/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > >Would it make sense / be useful to have also distinct "between
> > > >statements" callbacks?
> > >
> > > Yup. For the debugger if nothing else, and it's a good place to put
> > cleanup
> > > code, so... I expect we'll have an "end of statement" opcode
> >
> >Maybe just a bit for that on an(y) opcode?
>
> Well, I'd figured we'd have:
>
> *) A 'pending event' bit that would be checked per-opcode.
> *) An 'end-of-statement' opcode that the compiler would put in at the end
> of each statement
> *) An 'end of block' opcode that the compiler would put in at the end of
> each block
>
> The 'end of' opcodes would be able to have extra functions stacked on them
> so we could do arbitrary things after the end of every statement or block.
> (As well as on an individual block or statement boundary)
Well, either way (separate end-of opcodes or bits) is fine, depends on
how 'atomic' you want to keep the opcodes and what kind of metadata
they carry, if any.
For symmetry a begin-of-block opcode can be imagined, also, but I have
hard time thinking what would setup the code to run in there unless we
allow for time travel :-)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
