On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org> wrote: >> So you were thinking it should be 'int buffer_size(10)'? > No. This is what I was getting at about organic growth. I think = is > the natural choice given what is there, but if we were to try to start > with a fresh language that tried to be C++-like, I'm not sure we would > have gotten down this path. That said, I don't use the language and > I'm not clear that being C++-like buys that much.
I never thought of SLICC as being C++-like any more than C-like or Java-like or in some cases Pascal-like (or wherever that ':=' assignment operator came from), so I guess I didn't see any inconsistency. >> I thought I was doing well to use '=' and not ':=' :-) > := and = have become very confused. Is there a real semantic > difference, or is it simply that some syntax uses = while other syntax > uses :=. I believe there's a real difference, though I won't argue that it's a very useful one. As far as I can tell, := is the imperative assignment operator, while = is used just about everywhere else (including associating values with attributes in declarations). Anyway, as long as SLICCer is still on the horizon, I'm going to hold off on worrying about syntactic improvements until then. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
