On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:58:50PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > This needs more parsing rules in imcc.y so it's not (yet) implemented.
Grammar changes shouldn't be such an issue. It's just yacc. > But I've now implemented :opt_count ... > .param pmc p1 :optional > .param pmc p2 :optional > .param int i12 :opt_count # = 2 > .param pmc p3 :optional > .param int i3 :opt_count # = 1 Well, I'm about >< this close to asking you to _un_implement it as inadequate in the face of named parameters. It implies a semantic of parameter binding being driven by a single loop through the list of parameters, which, given the possibility of supporting named parameter passing, is not wise... Tt makes sense to scan the pairs containing named arguments by iterating through the list of pairs (if any), not by iterating through the parameters and doing a sequential scan for an appropriately named pair for each one. Therefore, it's possible that there will eventually no longer be a single loop through the parameters. The concept of strict temporal ordering might thus be lost, and the idea of "optional parameter up to this point" might also be lost. So apparently I'm going to have to figure out exactly how we support named parameters or this won't get settled. Fine.... -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
