> I don't follow... are you complaining about the syntax we're > introducing, or the way we're parsing it? In this particular case, > the syntax seems straightforward to me, as we're just extending the > state-machine parameter block to allow defaults, e.g., 'int > buffer_size = 10'. There's a minor oddity in that the default value > has to be an integer for now, regardless of the type of the parameter, > but we can check that for consistency elsewhere. (Right now it falls > through into the generated Python, so you won't get the type error > until later than necessary.) We can extend it to allow more general > defaults as needed.
I guess it seemed that the language seemed to try to be C++ like so as to be familiar to people. The expression that you've added is C-like, but the larger expression that it is part of seems to do member initialization very strangely. Then again, this is both a declaration and a definition, so perhaps it is unavoidable. Doesn't matter much to me. Nate _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
