[Push] Typing Stack Information

[Lee Spector]

Ah, I see. Would there be instructions that could manipulate the value and
type in such a pair separately? If not then it may be effectively the same
as our current approach for Push2, in which we have template-like
mechanisms to simplify creating versions of instructions for different
types, but in which all of the instructions end up with type-specific names
like INTEGER.DUP, FLOAT.DUP, etc. If there *are* ways to manipulate the
values and types separately then this could be interesting and I'd like to
see how it works out...

 -Lee



At 7:55 PM -0600 10/29/03, Rud Merriam wrote:
>I didn't explain my idea well. My thought is to have stack entries be a
>pair: (value, type). By examining the entry you know which overloaded
>operation is needed.
>
>Rud Merriam
>K5RUD
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lee Spector" <lspector at hampshire.edu>
>To: "Rud Merriam" <k5rud at arrl.net>; "Push" <Push at lists.hampshire.edu>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:28 PM
>Subject: [_] Re: [Push] Typing Stack Information
>
>
>|
>| Rud,
>|
>| The idea you outlined sounds much like the TYPE stack mechanism in the
>| original version of Push -- the TYPE stack is consulted (but not popped)
>| for each instruction executed to determine which method to execute (since
>| many instructions are overloaded). But perhaps I didn't understand your
>| proposal correctly...
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Push mailing list
>Push at lists.hampshire.edu
>http://lists.hampshire.edu/mailman/listinfo/push

--
Lee Spector
Dean, School of Cognitive Science
Associate Professor of Computer Science    lspector at hampshire.edu
Cognitive Science, Hampshire College       http://hampshire.edu/lspector/
Amherst, MA 01002                          413-559-5352, Fax: 413-559-5438