#618 alternative to dupn #2059
Open
#618 alternative to dupn #2059
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@wtlangford @nicowilliams It's old, I know, but why not?
Following my comments at #618 I am proving here my points.
The suggested
FORK_1Nwould need to pop/push for the first time and then producenullafter backtrack, so that the second branch has some input to consume. Hence a small change in the proposed naming.Or, alternatively, we could introduce at least one instruction which produces value but doesn't consume one. This would come in handy in many places - maybe some kind of a modifier for existing opcodes. Just saying...
All tests pass.