On Tue Sep 09 15:06:38 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > > Just for clarification: IIUC, the n_* opcodes and their semantics > > aren't really "going away" -- they're simply being renamed to not > > have the leading "n_" prefix. It's the existing "add", "sub", > > "mul", "div", etc. opcodes that are being eliminated. > > Yes. That is, calling 'add', 'sub', etc. will now create a new PMC for > the result on all the builtin PMCs. But, HLL/application developers will > have the option of writing their own PMCs that reuse the destination PMC > instead of a creating a new one. > > [...] > > This would seem to indicate that the string variants of the > > various math opcodes are also going away (and that's okay with me). > > > > So, if we can just get an official ruling that the add_p_p_s, > > sub_p_p_s, etc. opcodes are going away, then we can close this > > ticket as moot. > > Yes, these string variants only existed because of the unintelligent way > the infix/n_infix opcodes blindly redispatched. In the branch, where the > math opcodes are real opcodes, there are no string variants and we're > not adding them. > > So, ticket can be reclassified as irrelevant. > > Allison >
In that case it's rejected.
