From: Daniel Sheppard <daniels@...>
Date: 2005-10-25T09:29:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Bit of fun II

I was a little iffy on that too, but unless the opcodes are important
outside the program, I don't think it really matters. It took out the
duplication of having to define methods and also have a separate mapping
of method names to opcodes. 

But then, if opcodes aren't important outside the program, there's no
real point compiling the program to use opcodes at all - it should
probably just compile down to symbols rather than integers, so it can
avoid doing the lookup in the operation table to find the symbol.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lyndon Samson [mailto:lyndon.samson@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, 24 October 2005 7:24 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: Bit of fun II
> 
> On 10/24/05, Daniel Sheppard <daniels@pronto.com.au> wrote:
> > Here's my refactored version to make it a bit more "ruby". Hope this
> 
> cool code snipped
> 
> Sweet! I like all your changes except the implicit 
> opcode/method mapping, which just seems a little too 'magic' 
> for my taste.
> 
> 
> 
#####################################################################################
This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
#####################################################################################