On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Fredrik Öhrström
wrote:
> It might be fun, but I do not think that it is a good idea to implement
> an interpreter in this way,
> or more precisely, to implement any interpreter of bytecodes, using Java.
I never said anything about a bytecode interpreter :)
> For
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I ask because I still have a perverse desire to follow up on an idea
> John Rose gave me to implement JRuby's interpreter entirely with
> MethodHandles...with the obvious result being that by simply composing
> a set of handles they'll already be compiled to native co
Yes, that thought crossed my mind. If tail calling were there, the
only missing piece would be allowing a downstream handle (toward the
target) to be able to be rebound to an upstream handle. Currently
handles are a one-way street.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Emmanuel Castro
wrote:
> Maybe th
Maybe there is no need to have a special handle for loops if there is an
(hidden?) support for tail call in method handles ;-)
I remind me a blog page from John Rose:
http://blogs.sun.com/jrose/entry/tailcalls_meet_invokedynamic
There is questioning about putting coroutine in Java7. Will Java7 inc
