Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't the above be more like:
P1-vtable-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-vtable-num_type](i, P0, P1, P2);
I'm probably overlooking something here, but why the double indirection?
Shouldn't that just be
P1-vtable.vtable_funcs[
?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:18:32PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
I'm under the impression that the signature of the add method should be
void foo (interpreter, destination, left, right)
Shouldn't the above be more like:
P1-vtable-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-vtable-num_type](i,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:30:29PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
Uhm, since num_type and vtable_funcs are part of the vtable
structure, that would be more like
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
num_type: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for same as you, native int, bigint, native
float, bigfloat, object
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
I don't understand the same as you thing; num_type isn't a
At 02:59 PM 10/20/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
num_type: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for same as you, native int, bigint, native
float, bigfloat, object
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
I don't
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
... and to go a step further in sanity and maintainability, I'd suggest
using a structure with properly typed function pointers instead of an
array:
typedef void (*parrot_pmc_add) (PMC *dest, PMC *a, PMC *b);
typedef void
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've now changed the vtable structure to reflect this, but I'd like someone
to confirm that the variant forms of the ops can be addressed the way I
think they can. (ie. structure-base_element + 1 to get thing after
On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:56:08PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
... and to go a step further in sanity and maintainability, I'd suggest
using a structure with properly typed function pointers instead of an
array:
typedef void
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
Uhm, since num_type and vtable_funcs are part of the vtable
structure, that would be more like
P1-vtable-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-vtable-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
At 12:30 PM 10/18/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
P1-vtable_funcs[VTABLE_ADD + P2-num_type](P1, P2, P0);
Uhm, since num_type and vtable_funcs are part of the vtable
structure, that would be more like
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:50:55PM +0200, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
It is clear that PMCs are object but does the acronym has a signification?
Parrot Magic Cookie.
Where can such things be found.
In the documentation I'm in the middle of writing.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 06:51:24AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Are we going to be officially calling this the Parrot Virtual
Computer?
What, Parrot? No, Parrot's called Parrot.
--
I washed a sock. Then I put it in the dryer. When I took it out, it was gone.
-- Steven Wright
On 10/09/01 Dan Sugalski wrote:
For sanity's sake, I don't suppose you'd consider
typedef void* (*vtable_func_t)();
to make it
vtable_func_t vtable_funcs[VTABLE_SIZE];
I'd be thrilled. Abstract types are A Good Thing. In fact, I'll go make it
so right now. :)
... and to go a step
Quoting Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:50:55PM +0200, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
It is clear that PMCs are object but does the acronym has a signification?
Parrot Magic Cookie.
No matter how hard I try, my brain always expands it to Perl Meaty
Chunk. It kinda fits,
Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Okay, here's a quick rundown on PMCs and how we're handling opcodes called
on PMC registers. (This is mildly different than what's gone in the past, FWIW)
Every PMC has a set of static types, stored in the vtable. These types are
static, and stuck
At 06:06 PM 10/9/2001 -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
Quoting Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:50:55PM +0200, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
It is clear that PMCs are object but does the acronym has a
signification?
Parrot Magic Cookie.
No matter how hard I try, my brain
At 11:27 AM 10/10/2001 +0200, Paolo Molaro wrote:
On 10/09/01 Dan Sugalski wrote:
For sanity's sake, I don't suppose you'd consider
typedef void* (*vtable_func_t)();
to make it
vtable_func_t vtable_funcs[VTABLE_SIZE];
I'd be thrilled. Abstract types are A Good Thing. In fact,
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Questions, anyone? ;-)
Will there be a test on this?
--
Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One
It sure is fun masturbating.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:03:13AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Questions, anyone? ;-)
Will there be a test on this?
Plenty, I hope, but isn't that your perview? :)
--
fga is frequently given answers... the best are
Excuse me,
It is clear that PMCs are object but does the acronym has a signification?
Where can such things be found.
Thank you
Benoit
Benoit Cerrina:
#Excuse me,
#It is clear that PMCs are
#object but does the acronym
#has a signification? Where
#can such things be found.
PMC eq Parrot Magic Cookie--a PMC is an opaque Thing whose actual
value you don't care about.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:50:55PM +0200, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
It is clear that PMCs are object but does the acronym has a signification?
Parrot Magic Cookie.
Where can such things be found.
In the documentation I'm in the middle of writing. :)
Simon
--
Pretty, smart, sane:Pick two.
At 06:08 PM 10/9/2001 -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Okay, here's a quick rundown on PMCs and how we're handling opcodes called
on PMC registers. (This is mildly different than what's gone in the
past, FWIW)
Every PMC has a set of static types, stored
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
PACKAGE *package;
INTVAL base_type;
INTVAL int_type;
INTVAL float_type;
INTVAL num_type;
INTVAL string_type;
Why are all these in the vtable? They seem like PMC-ish things
to me.
--
At 12:00 AM 10/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:36:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
PACKAGE *package;
INTVAL base_type;
INTVAL int_type;
INTVAL float_type;
INTVAL num_type;
INTVAL string_type;
Why are all these in
25 matches
Mail list logo
