Dan --
> > * The recognition of register types means that you can't use labels
> > like 'I4'. It would be nice if registers and labels were in
> > different namespaces.
>
> I don't think this is necessary. Odds are almost nobody'll be writing
> parrot assembler once we have a working parser/compiler combo to generate
> the bytecode automatically, so I don't think it's worth the effort. Simple
> is OK at this level. :)
I was thinking along the lines of having a complete assembly language
for writing programs for the Parrot ISA, with all that that implies.
If I'm the only one thinking that way, that's ok, but it just seems to
me to be the right thing: A powerful ISA + A powerful assembler +
multiple powerful language compilers.
What, exactly, will be written directly in pasm? Low-level ops will be
written in C, high-level stuff can be written in whatever language is
built on top of PISA (Parrot Instruction Set Architecture). I was
imagining a set of intermediate support stuff to be written in pasm.
Regards,
-- Gregor
_____________________________________________________________________
/ perl -e 'srand(-2091643526); print chr rand 90 for (0..4)' \
Gregor N. Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Focus Research, Inc. http://www.focusresearch.com/
8080 Beckett Center Drive #203 513-860-3570 vox
West Chester, OH 45069 513-860-3579 fax
\_____________________________________________________________________/
