On 10/2/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>> The big overall cunning plan is to remove ".local" for this purpose > >>> (defining labels), and to use ".local" ONLY for declaring variables. > >>> Then, once all ".local" (in macros) are replaced by ".label", we can > >>> start replacing ".sym"s by ".local", so that ".sym" can be removed > >>> from the lexer. > >> Shouldn't that be '.macro_local' or something like that ? > >> > >> CU, Bernhard > > > > you mean for unique identifiers within a macro? I think that's not a > > bad idea. > > (But it's just syntax, it's easy to change at a later point; it's not > > decided yet) > > It depends on behavior, really. If the behavior of things declared with > .local is the same inside and outside macros, then it makes sense to > keep them both named the same thing. If they have fundamentally > different behavior, then a distinct name like .macro_local makes sense. > > I like the .label/.local scheme, it's simple and clear.
I wonder in what case it's useful to have a "normal" .local directive in a macro (with its normal semantics). Every time the macro is expanded, the same local var. would be declared, which can't be good. So, it'd make sense to have '.local' generate a unique var within a macro, but it does break consistency a bit (because the same directive does different things, but arguably it does the *right* thing in different contexts). We can have a look at this after next release, when this clean-up is finished (removing .sym completely, and all .local's are replaced by .label's). Then we can decide what stuff is needed for local vars, and implement one of the options: i. uniquely generated vars ii. "normal" local vars iii. both i and ii. kjs
