Its handy to at least have the option of making args writable in order to support implementing languages like Javascript on top of the bytecode set. -david
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[email protected]> wrote: > At Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:24:02 -0800, > Vassili Bykov wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > At Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:11:16 +0100, > > > Michael Rueger wrote: > > >> > > >> What really is the convenience of modifying an argument? Having not to > > >> think up another name? I never understood this argument especially if > > >> you need to use the original value of the argument in several places. > > > > > > If you can think of an argument as a "temp initialized by the > > > caller" (like C), that kind of unifies the args and temps and would > > > reduce the implementation complexity. In *some cases* it would reduce > > > the lines of code in the user land. > > > > Or alternatively one can think of a temp as an argument of an invisible > block, > > > > | foo | > > foo := 3. > > ... > > > > being a form of > > > > [:foo | ...] value: 3. > > If args are assignable, and yes you can unify methods and blocks. > > But I'm pretty much convinced that debugged context being > restartable (by making args readonly) is important in practice. > > -- Yoshiki > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
