[perl #22717] [PATCH] take 2: convert parrot to continuation passing style
Dan Sugalski
>[perl #22633] [PATCH] convert parrot to continuation passing style" is
>outdated. Attached is a less ambitious patch to convert parrot to
>continuation passing style. Here is a summary of the ops (recall that the
>continuation gets stored in P1):
>
> invokecc # standard invoke
> invoke P1 # standard return
> invoke # tail call (leave P1 as is)
While I think I want to change the names a bit, that can wait. Until
then, applied, thanks! :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
K Stol
Somehow I lost track of the thread of converting Parrot to CPS.
Some time ago, I read on www.sidhe.org/~dan/blog:
" That is, assuming we do CPS, which we don't right now. Though that may
well change."
Then, I blinked my eyes one or two times (well maybe 3, 4, 5 times :-), and
Parrot has already been converted to CPS (or it's being converted). I think
I missed the part in which the decission was made to do this. I can't find
it in the mailing list.
I'd like to know what the reasons were to convert Parrot to CPS. (a link to
the posting will do)
Thanks in advance.
Sorry for my inattentiveness.
Klaas-Jan
Leopold Toetsch
> Hello,
> Somehow I lost track of the thread of converting Parrot to CPS.
> I missed the part in which the decission was made to do this. I can't find
> it in the mailing list.
It probably started on p6i with Dans post: "More sub/method call stuff"
> Klaas-Jan
leo
Luke Palmer
Yeah, about there. But he just kinda said "We're going to CPS". I,
for one, am curious why.
Luke
Dan Sugalski
Because I finally realized that we had to save off so much state that
we essentially had a continuation anyway, and might as well just make
it formal and save all the hassle. I'll give more detail later. (On
the way out)