Thanks for the summary Wilhelm!
Regards,
Kashyap
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 12:33 PM Wilhelm Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Only topics whose questioners were present were discussed, so we didn't
> talk about the interpreter only approach, holding it as a topic for future
> session.
>
> Alex addressed the
Only topics whose questioners were present were discussed, so we didn't
talk about the interpreter only approach, holding it as a topic for
future session.
Alex addressed the "array avoidance" question, explaining the how arrays
would complicate the core single data type implementation and
As bad an excuse that it may sound, it is the truth - I messed up my alarm
setting (AM vs PM) :) and missed the meeting.
Could I request someone to please summarize what was discussed?
particularly about the "interpreter only" approach. If it was not discussed
then perhaps I can request Alex to
Hi Andras,
> So you’ve found it yourself, that the types and the number of args
> should not change between invocations.
In fact the type is not critical, at least on a 64-bit machine, as all arguments
are passed to a function as opaque word-sized values (pointer, scalar, double or
whatever).
Hi Alex,
So you’ve found it yourself, that the types and the number of args
should not change between invocations.
So I’ve changed the native call syntax to mark variable-args functions,
instead of using a fresh binding for every call.
Regards,
Andras
> On 2020. Nov 6., at 8:07, Alexander
