I haven't written PIR in a while, and I'm not terribly familiar with the
new changes, but I'll make some guesses.
Klaas-Jan Stol writes:
> function main()
>
> local p = 123;
> local q = 345;
>
> foo(q);
> foo(q);
>
> function foo(a) # nested function, it does have access to p in "main"
> print(p);
> p = p + p;
>
> print(typeof(a));
> print(a);
> end
> end
>
> I would translate this to this PIR code:
>
> .sub _main
> new_pad 0
>
> # local p = 123
> .local pmc p
> p = new .PerlInt
> p = 123
> store_lex 0, "p", p
If I recall, store_lex 0 is meaningless, and you ought to be using
either store_lex 1 or store_lex -1. Not too sure about this one though.
>
> # local q = 345
> .local pmc q
> q = new .PerlInt
> q = 345
> store_lex 0, "q", q
>
> newsub $P0, .Closure, _foo
>
> # foo(q)
> .arg q
> $P0()
Shouldn't this be:
$P0(q)
? And likewise below?
>
> # foo(q)
> .arg q
> $P0()
>
> end
> .end
>
> .sub _foo
> .param pmc a
>
> # print(p);
> find_lex $P0, "p"
> print $P0
>
> # p = p + p;
> $P0 = $P0 + $P0
I feel a little uneasy about this line. I'm not sure how PIR interprets
this.
> store_lex "p", $P0
>
> # print(typeof(a));
> $S0 = typeof a
> print $S0 # ????
>
> # print(a);
> print a # ERROR!
> .end
>
> My problem with the last 2 statements is:
> - the statement print(typeof(a)); print "SArray", which I don't understand.
I'm going to guess that that's due to your use of .arg above.
Luke
