Re: An overview of the Parrot interpreter

[Piers Cawley]

Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> At 10:32 AM 9/4/2001 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > * Methods get their parameters passed in as a list in PMC register 0,
> > > * unless we can unambiguously figure out their prototype at
> > > * compilation time
> >
> >Will the subroutine know how it was called? (ie: Through method
> >dispatch or through straightforward symbol table lookup. I'm really
> >hoping the answer to this is 'yes'.) Or will methods and subroutines
> >be distinct now?
> 
> I suppose we could, and I don't know.
> 
> Can you see any use of a sub knowing it was called via a method call?

Yes. Especially if that comes with knowledge of what symbol table the
sub was found in. Then I could write HYPER.pm, a runtime equivalent of
SUPER::, and I believe that Damian's very lovely NEXT.pm could become 
substantially more reliable too.

-- 
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com