On 14/07/07, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> OK, you got me there. That's probably the only good reason you could
> possibly have a need for a prim number!
>
> I suggest using 169, next to primitiveCopyObject - at least for now.
> You will, of course, be making your design so nicely factored and
> intelligible that it could be changed at any time without causing a
> problem, won't you :-)
>
Thanks for advice. I making awful hacks ;) to be able directly execute
code, compiled by Exupery, as primitive.
The trick is, whenever compiler founds <assembler> pragma in method
code, it generates call to my primitive, and puts in method literal
info on what should be called. The bytecode of method is replaced with
error-handling, when primitive failed.

> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Strange OpCodes: HALT: No-Op
>
>
>
>