Vague Heads-up
I'm seriously investigating the possibility of changing IV and NV to something more readable. (But for those of you who are following language-dev, don't tell 'em because then they'll think they've won. ;) -- I don't understand how people can think SCSI is anything more quirky than a genius with peculiar dietary requirements in a world where the creators of Notes, and their new owners, are allowed to walk the streets without fearing for their very lives. - Graham Reed, asr
Re: Vague Heads-up
At 03:34 PM 9/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: (But for those of you who are following language-dev, don't tell 'em because then they'll think they've won. ;) Ah, go ahead and tell them. I don't much care about who wins or loses if the code's easier to maintain and runs fast. (Neither do I much care about people who really care about winning or losing, 'cause they'll get in the way of the two main goals... :) Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Vague Heads-up
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm seriously investigating the possibility of changing IV and NV to something more readable. (But for those of you who are following language-dev, don't tell 'em because then they'll think they've won. ;) Some time ago I sugested that NV was a bad name, because in early Perl 5 is was there to contrast with PV - ie an SV contains numeric or string value (or both). When SVs started to hold IVs too, the name became misleading - it would have made more sense of rename it FV or something. Also, I think that IV needs splitting into two or more different types. There is the type that specifically fits in the Parrot integer registers and is recognised by parrot ops; Then there are all the other places within perl and parrot which need to contain integers or pointers, which may or may not be the same type or size as the register ints.
Re: Vague Heads-up
At 04:16 PM 9/20/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote: Also, I think that IV needs splitting into two or more different types. There is the type that specifically fits in the Parrot integer registers and is recognised by parrot ops; Then there are all the other places within perl and parrot which need to contain integers or pointers, which may or may not be the same type or size as the register ints. I don't want to do int-pointer casts anywhere in the source if we can possibly avoid it. Yech. Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Vague Heads-up
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:39:52AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: I don't want to do int-pointer casts anywhere in the source if we can possibly avoid it. Yech. In which case, do we *need* a type that can hold both. -- Darkly hinting of head hitting desk -- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-05
Re: Vague Heads-up
At 04:38 PM 9/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:39:52AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: I don't want to do int-pointer casts anywhere in the source if we can possibly avoid it. Yech. In which case, do we *need* a type that can hold both. I can't think of a reason, no. I don't promise that a reason doesn't exist, however. :) Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Vague Heads-up
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 04:38 PM 9/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:39:52AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: I don't want to do int-pointer casts anywhere in the source if we can possibly avoid it. Yech. In which case, do we *need* a type that can hold both. I can't think of a reason, no. I don't promise that a reason doesn't exist, however. :) Well, the following (macro-expanded) line in register.c tries to go both ways: chunk_base = (void *)(0xf000 (IV) interpreter-int_reg ) ; -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
Re: Vague Heads-up
At 02:21 PM 9/20/2001 -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 04:38 PM 9/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:39:52AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: I don't want to do int-pointer casts anywhere in the source if we can possibly avoid it. Yech. In which case, do we *need* a type that can hold both. I can't think of a reason, no. I don't promise that a reason doesn't exist, however. :) Well, the following (macro-expanded) line in register.c tries to go both ways: chunk_base = (void *)(0xf000 (IV) interpreter-int_reg ) ; True. That's one of the really evil bits, though. (As is a good chunk of memory.c...) I only yanked in IV as a typecast as a convenience, and it really ought to be something else. Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
