RE: [Emerson-general] (no subject)

[Lucas M. <luc...@ro...>]

Ok, sounds good. As for unsafe code/pointers, no they shouldn't be there.
This follows my logic for removing the threading opcodes; People can and
will code in pure assembly, there should be no way to formulate any kind of
opcode sequence that would cause a security, stability, or data corruption
issue. Obviously accessing things by string name is too slow but I was
thinking of having a "scope table" for each scope, which matches names, and
real C++ pointers. Then in the asm code it would be based on indexes in the
scope table. So you have pseudo pointers but you can't access anything not
in your scope. Also this table (the C++ structure I mean) would have a
pointer to its parent scope table to allow multiple nested scopes.

-Lucas