RE: Re[2]: Mutable Bytes

Lenard Lindstrom wrote:

> > By the way, I think you are getting your wish.  I am in the 
> middle of 
> > restructuring my objects for the new copying garbage collector and 
> > binary-data is stored directly inside objects now instead of being 
> > linked to in a separate malloc.  Every function is copied 
> before it is 
> > called and my old way of storing the bytecodes in the binary-data 
> > section of an object is now inefficient because the 
> bytecodes would be 
> > copied on every call.  Having the bytcodes in a separate 
> Bytes object 
> > would mean the shallow function copy wouldn't have to copy the 
> > bytecodes on every call.  So I'm moving the bytecodes to an 
> attrbiute 
> > of the function like you have always said it should be.
> > 
> It was only a suggestion so the disassembler can be written 
> in Prothon. Beyond that unless one can actually execute 
> custom created bytecode strings it is of little use.

If you can stuff the bytecodes into an attribute of a function and call the
function then you would be executing the bytecodes.

> > Another change I am mentioning in my talk is on my to-do list.  The 
> > scope object for functions will now be the actual function object 
> > itself.  So all local variables will be attributes of the function 
> > also.  This means every attribute like fParams_ better have the 
> > trailing underbar. :-)
> > 
> What if the function is called recursively or from more than 
> one thread at the same time?

Each call gets it's own unique shallow copy of the function so it would
start fresh with just the fParams_, name_, prevScope_, and actual params.
Functions have been copied when called for some time.  Greg asked why and I
cannot remember.  I'm trying to find the old messages.