23 | | cotto_work: I do plan to have an option whereby code can say "assume this lexical/symbol isn't being rebound" |
24 | | but since parrot doesn't have a good assignment model, most folks end up doing rebinds |
25 | | partcl-nqp just went through this yesterday (until I fixed it this morning) whereby symbols were being re-bound to new PMCs instead of changing the value of an existing multiply-bound PMC |
| 25 | cotto_work: I do plan to have an option whereby code can say "assume this lexical/symbol isn't |
| 26 | being rebound" but since parrot doesn't have a good assignment model, most folks end up doing rebinds |
| 27 | partcl-nqp just went through this yesterday (until I fixed it this morning) whereby symbols were being |
| 28 | re-bound to new PMCs instead of changing the value of an existing multiply-bound PMC |
116 | | but it's horribly inefficient, because it involves making a clone of $P2 and then copying that structure into the PMC header for $P1 |
117 | | but so far it's about the best we can do |
118 | | everything gets worse when we start talking about aggregate access |
119 | | because there's not a copy $P0[0], $P2 opcode yet |
120 | | and this leads to allison's comment that it really should be the PMCs/vtables that determine behavior instead of opcodes |
121 | | (which is where the model completely breaks down) |
| 119 | but it's horribly inefficient, because it involves making a clone of $P2 and then copying that |
| 120 | structure into the PMC header for $P1 but so far it's about the best we can do everything gets |
| 121 | worse when we start talking about aggregate access because there's not a copy $P0[0], $P2 |
| 122 | opcode yet and this leads to allison's comment that it really should be the PMCs/vtables that determine |
| 123 | behavior instead of opcodes (which is where the model completely breaks down) |