Bit of fun II

ruby-talk
1

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.

ยทยทยท

-----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.
#####################################################################################