On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:50 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat Aug 09 10:31:37 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Saturday 09 August 2008 06:33:46 James Keenan via RT wrote:
>>
>> > > What purpose remains, then, for either tools/dev/ops_renum.mak or
>> my
>> > > alternative, tools/dev/opsrenumber.pl? Is such a program only
>> intended
>> > > to provide a number for newly added opcodes?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hm, I missed the question the first time. The program renumbers
>> opcodes when
>> adding or removing one or more opcodes. (Removing is less likely as
>> time
>> goes by, but we reserve the right to do so for the forseeable future.)
>>
>
> Hmm ... it appears to me that particle took a harder line earlier in
> this RT against removal: "in an attempt to keep bytecode compatible
> across versions of parrot, opcodes can never be deleted."
>
> Do we have a disagreement there? If not, I'd like to know whether my
> replacement script DTRT or needs fixing ('cause I'm more confused than
> when i started).
>
let me clarify: after 1.0, in order to allow bytecode to be work
across parrot releases (where there may be new or deprecated opcodes),
opcode numbers can never be reused. before parrot is production ready
(before 1.0) we have not made any promise of bytecode compatibility
across releases, other than that it'd be great if we can do it (which
means we can reuse opcode numbers if we want to, but i still find it
unlikely as it's counter-cultural.
i don't see any disagreement between myself and chromatic.
~jerry
