On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:28:08PM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 07:36:11AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> >>indeed. that's why
> >>
> >> array = push item
> >>
> >>and
> >>
> >> $S0 = 'hello'
> >> $S0 = say
> >>
> >>is valid pir.
> >
> >Actually, $S0 = 'hello' doesn't have an explicit opcode --
> >it's syntactic sugar for
> >
> > set $S0, 'hello'
>
> We don't have a set_s_sc? It seems ops.num differs with you on that.
I'm not claiming that there's not a 'set_s_sc' opcode... I'm only
observing that in
$S0 = 'hello'
the opcode ('set') isn't explicitly given in the PIR, and therefore
this PIR statement doesn't really match the pattern I originally
identified:
target = opcode [arg1, arg2, ...]
In other words, where (PIR) target = opcode [arg1, arg2, ...]
is syntactic sugar for (PASM) opcode target [, arg1, arg2, ...]
we would say that (PIR) target = source
is syntactic sugar for (PASM) set target, source
Pm
