At 09:07 PM 9/20/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> DS> There probably won't be any. The current thinking is that since
> DS> the ops themselves will be a lot smaller, we'll have an explicit
> DS> event checking op that the compiler will liberally scatter through
> DS> the generated code. Less overhead that way.
>
>we talked about that solution before and i think it has some
>problems. what if someone writes a short loop. will it generate enough
>op codes that a check_event one is emitted?
The compiler will make sure, yes.
>do we always emit one in
>loops?
At least one per statement, probably more for things like regexes.
>what about complex conditional code? i don't think there is an
>easy way to guarantee events are checked with inserted op codes. doing
>it in the op loop is better for this.
I'd agree in some cases, but I don't think it'll be a big problem to get
things emitted properly. (It's funny we're arguing exactly opposite
positions than we had not too long ago... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
