I should clarify 'very little poking' as that was a bit out of context.
Poking of bytecode from language X and language Y is an unknown story.
Poking of bytecode is general is a covered area. AFAWK, poking shouldn't be a problem,
but I was playing it safe for when someone comes up with language Y that does something
totally off the wall that no one ever expected or saw coming.
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 6:09 PM, James Ladd wrote:
I have done a LOT of poking.
You can issue whatever bytecode the JVM supports, meaning it the JVM can do it, you can too.
What we done want to show yet is the mechanism for emitting the bytecode as it is verbose and
we want to clean it up.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Sean T Allen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Aaron Olson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Sean T Allen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Can you clarify what you mean by 'poke at objects' created outside of redline?
You mean something created in clojure/java/scala/groovy etc?
Exactly that, yes.
We work on the bytecode level. We should be able to do lots of poking.
I'd don't want to say much more beyond that because we have done very little poking so far.
In theory this should work well.
The goal is to interoperate with java, clojure, groovy or whatever else.
You can do this now. It just isn't very pretty. Pretty will come later.
-S-
Locked
