[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands
From: |
Martin Voelkle |
Subject: |
Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:55:33 +0200 |
> >It's a bad idea to use the call stack for TEA functions, since you won't be
> >able to save/restore it. SGSL doesn't have that problem, because it doesn't
> >have stacks. The only thing that must be saved are the instruction pointer
> >and a few global variables.
> >
> >
> Yes, SGSL have no control statements and internal script functions, and
> that make a big difference. I have been thinking about the "call stack"
> problem in TEA, and I guess I could make it use another method there too
> (I maintain the call stack), and yes this makes persisting the script
> state more easy to do.
Since you maintain the call stack, you just need to push the address of
the instruction after the call (don't use a pointer if you want to be
able to save/restore it), jump to the address of the call and do the
reverse on method return.
> The only problem that remain (for both TEA and SGSL) is when the script
> calls some external functions, as we have no control over these as for
> dead loop and other faults !
Treat these external functions as atomic instructions and make sure they
don't call script functions. Since they are part of glob2, we can trust
them as for bugs (hopefully).
> >There is no "language comment" in the LUA license. It speaks about the
> >source
> >code of the implementation that can't be modified without modifying the name
> >of the program. LUA abandoned that license for this reason and switched to
> >the MIT license.
> >
> >
> ... they just defines what may be viewed as an extension to LUA and what
> is a change in the language semantic, and I like that separation.
I'm sorry, I don't see that kind of wording in the license:
http://www.lua.org/license.html
> >I had misunderstood what you wanted to keep free. I thought you wanted the
> >specification of the language to be fixed and your implementation to be
> >free.
> >
> >
> If someone thinks they can improve TEA by changing the language, they
> are welcome to use my code as base, as long as it has another name and
> remain LGPL. But I prefere to see the changes go into TEA to make it an
> even better language.
>
> >But it seems like you want to let people modify the language as well.
> >
> >
> Yes, but I like to stay in control of this instance :-)
>
> Is this a bad idea ?
No, you can always keep control of what you release. That's the whole
point of maintainership.
Martin
- [glob2-devel] Language demands, Bo Lorentsen, 2005/06/15
- Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands, Stephane Magnenat, 2005/06/17
- Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands, Bo Lorentsen, 2005/06/19
- [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Kyle Lutze, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Gabriel Walt, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Stephane Magnenat, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Andrew Sayers, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Emmanuel Eckard, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Stephane Magnenat, 2005/06/20
- Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas, Emmanuel Eckard, 2005/06/20