I stand corrected. Though, actualy, I think people use the term "bytecode" somwhat incorrectly (and I say only somewhat) because the B::* tree is named B-for-Bytecode (OK, it's actualy not, it's B-for-Backend, but I think it's confusingly similar), and it's original purpose was that ineffective hack.
In any case, do you have a better term then bytecode, other then "opcode tree", which seems a little unwieldy?
Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).