On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 08:32 AM, A.C.T. wrote:
Again: Please excuse my potentially "offending" questions. I am trying to understand the technical implications of using Revolution and to find out why some issues seem ... somewhat "complicated", where they do not have to be complicated :-)
I can only guess.
Recompiling allows for one method of handling of partially compatible stacks and engines. For example, recently audio had some major changes. Some folks might mix engines and scripts.
Recompiling insures all compiled scripts in a stack to be compatible with each other
Recompiling potentially removes one level of lookup in the code. The "byte code" can then be platform and engine dependent. For example the unsigned long representing a command might be the actual address of the command code and not an index into a table to get the address of the command code.
It might be that the script is actually compiled down to machine code in some places. Also, recompiling keeps the door open for machine-code compiling in the future if it is not done now.
RunRev might feel that exposing "byte code" in the stacks would reveal too much intellectual property.
Recompiling allows going to alternate sizes of inline data.
However, there might be times in which I would benefit from being able to lock reading of a stack and have only the compiled code and not the script kept in the stack. This should not prevent setting the script again though. All of the above issues would have to be addressed.
Those are just my wild guesses. I know nothing of the innards of Revolution compiling.
Dar Scott
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
