[Christian Tismer, replying to Guido's enthusiasm <wink>] > Thanks for looking into it, thanks for saying it's tricky. > Since I failed to supply proper documentation yet, this > impression must come up. > > But it is really not true. The code is not tricky > but just straightforward and consequent, after one has understood > what it means to work without a stack, under the precondition > to avoid too much changes. I didn't want to rewrite > the world, and I just added the tiny missing bits. > > I will write up my documentation now, and you will > understand what the difficulties were. These will not > vanish, "stackless" is a brainteaser. My problem was not how > to change the code, but finally it was how to change > my brain. Now everything is just obvious. FWIW, I believe you! There's something *inherently* tricky about maintaining the effect of a stack without using the stack C supplies implicitly, and from all you've said and what I've learned of your code, it really isn't the code that's tricky here. You're making formerly-hidden connections explicit, which means more stuff is visible, but also means more power and flexibility *because* "more stuff is visible". Agree too that this clearly <wink> moves in the direction of making the VM pluggable. > ... > I *will* continue, regardless what anybody says. Ah, if that's how this works, then STOP! Immediately! Don't you dare waste more of our time with this crap <wink>. want-some-money?-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4