The Crystal programming language | http://crystal-lang.org | Fund Crystal's development: http://is.gd/X7PRtI | Docs: http://crystal-lang.org/docs/ | API: http://crystal-lang.org/api/
I want to implement something like a dispatch table for a series of pseudo-bytecode instructions. I'd like to lookup each instruction and then yield my little VM to a proc, and execute each instruction that way.
Is this wise? And also, I don't see a yield_self method, am I missing something crucial?
so debatable if its worth just not declaring a block arg
but if it works fine for your use case :+1:
Do you think it makes more sense then to just implement all the bytecodes as methods under the main VM class? I had already thought of that, but it just seemed inelegant. I haven't worked with a statically typed language before, so I don't really have the right intuition for this sort of thing. If it were ruby, I would just have the VM object be very simple and then have a big hash of procs as the values and use yield_self to execute them by passing in the vm object
doesn't compile, just a quick example I crapped out
I'm writing my own Push interpreter
but that's the general idea for execution
<riza> i suppose it depends on how many instructions are in your instruction set
would have to benchmark what would be more performant, but i imagine having methods on the same type would be than a bunch of procs
<riza> going along with what Blacksmoke has suggested, you could easily make a macro that collects all the methods on your VM class, filters out methods with a prefix, and generates the parser/dispatcher for that
<riza> So adding an instruction to your bytecode is as simple as defining a method called
instruction_add
Is there an issue/PR for ordering of classes affecting method overload resolution? E.g. https://play.crystal-lang.org/#/r/cytw vs https://play.crystal-lang.org/#/r/cytv
I know about crystal-lang/crystal#9750, but I think that's a bit different, since this isn't exactly a method ordering difference.
Unless I'm doing something wrong, neither crystal-lang/crystal#10711 nor crystal-lang/crystal#11840 fix it...
tried with #11840 and it works with
-Dpreview_overload_order
(btw i really hope these two prs get merged asap, plus an upcoming one for macro overloads)
hm, would be nice to have a way to "hard comment" that ignores all macro statements in a line. maybe just
##.
commenting them out is kinda iffy at the moment, my current strategy is to go in and put a space between all
{ %'s
yeh, but when fiddling with macro code i often just want to comment things in & out quickly.
looks like this has already been proposed https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/8408#issuecomment-548659454
but it got shootered straight down ;)
e.g. say you have a complicated {% else %} case in a macro, and want to try a different variant.
currently i basically eyeball how many
currently i basically eyeball how many
{%'s are in there that i'd need to patch up and then either defuse them with spaces, or cut out whole section and stash it in a temp file. not a huge deal, but not a great dev experience either.
at least not if there are escapes involved
ah, actually it does seem to work. guess i had just not scrolled far enough to get out of my nested macros.
:thumbsdown: that's actually worse than putting it in a different file, now i have to search it to bring it back