Newsgroups: perl.perl6.internals Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact perl6-internals-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list perl6-intern...@perl.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: d...@redcap.sidhe.org (Unverified) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:14:48 -0400 To: "Melvin Smith" Subject: Re: Stack mark ops & such. Cc: perl6-intern...@perl.org, Jerome Vouillon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org From: d...@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski) Lines: 23 At 2:51 PM -0400 8/5/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >At 10:43 AM +0200 8/5/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote: >>>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:52:11AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >>>How is this going to interact with continuations and coroutines? > >>Continuations... those are more interesting. Potentially we can >>unwind the same chunk of stack multiple times. Which is a good point, >>and I'm glad you brought it up--means I need to undo one of the ops. > >But currently each continuation gets its own copy anyway, whether >it is explicit or carries the COW flag, so is there actually any >problem here? The only issue is potentially popping something with an active pop function more than once. Though if we document that, I don't know that it's a big problem. -- Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk