On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:59:35AM -0500, Matt Diephouse wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Matt Diephouse wrote: > >> Sure. I think Tcl handles this pretty nicely at the moment (although > >> Leo disagrees - he likes the Ref PMC route). The main idea is that > >> aliasing/binding enters the same PMC under a different name and that > >> assignment morphs the PMC. > > > >Does this basically assume that every PMC knows how to morph into > >any other type? (In the example I gave the PMC would need to be able > >to morph from an integer to a list, but in the general case it could > >be converting to any type.) > > No, it assumes that every PMC knows how to morph into an Undef. Once > you have an Undef, you can safely use assign. [...]
Ahhhh, I get it. Yes, this sounds good to me. In fact, it's pretty much what I asked for -- a "sequence of opcodes that convert a PMC into a value-based copy of another PMC". Many thanks, I'll go with that for now. Pm
