Re: [perl #42769] Names of basic PMC serve as keywords in PIR
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 10:38:11AM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote: On So. 29. Apr. 2007, 06:01:16, kjs wrote: In r21167 the keyword 'object', as a synonym of 'pmc', was removed from PIR. However the question from kjs remains to be answered: related to this, I think that imcc also allows for built-in types as types. such as .local Array a etc. (sorry can't check; don't have my own pc around here, this is a public pc) (I added some notes about this and other PIR cleanups in languages/PIR and I think also in compilers/pirc IIRC). IMHO, this is not needed; pmc is sufficient, and it'd be nice to keep PIR as simple as possible, after all it's an intermediate language. Moreover, everytime a built-in type is added (although not happening that often) the grammar would have to be updated to stay consistent. I second the suggestion from kjs. It isn't helpful to be able to say: .local Array my_string my_string = new String In fact, I think many PIR programmers will find this confusing. Let's stick with 'pmc' for now -- we can extend it later if need be. Pm
Re: [perl #42769] Names of basic PMC serve as keywords in PIR
Patrick R. Michaud schrieb: related to this, I think that imcc also allows for built-in types as types. such as .local Array a etc. (sorry can't check; don't have my own pc around here, this is a public pc) (I added some notes about this and other PIR cleanups in languages/PIR and I think also in compilers/pirc IIRC). In fact, I think many PIR programmers will find this confusing. Let's stick with 'pmc' for now -- we can extend it later if need be. The question is not whether this feature should be added, but whether it should be first deprecated and then removed. Currently .sub main :main .local Array my_string my_string = new String my_string = 'hello' say my_string .end is valid PIR. Regards, Bernhard
Re: [perl #42769] Names of basic PMC serve as keywords in PIR
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 07:47:58PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: Patrick R. Michaud schrieb: related to this, I think that imcc also allows for built-in types as types. such as .local Array a etc. (sorry can't check; don't have my own pc around here, this is a public pc) (I added some notes about this and other PIR cleanups in languages/PIR and I think also in compilers/pirc IIRC). In fact, I think many PIR programmers will find this confusing. Let's stick with 'pmc' for now -- we can extend it later if need be. The question is not whether this feature should be added, but whether it should be first deprecated and then removed. Yes, I understand this. I'm saying that even though .local Array mystring is currently allowed, AFAIK there aren't any PIR programs that use this. Thus I'm saying we should stick with only using .local pmc ..., and deprecate/remove .local Array ... to prevent others from being confused if they ever see it in a PIR program. Pm
[perl #42769] Names of basic PMC serve as keywords in PIR
On So. 29. Apr. 2007, 06:01:16, kjs wrote: In r21167 the keyword 'object', as a synonym of 'pmc', was removed from PIR. However the question from kjs remains to be answered: related to this, I think that imcc also allows for built-in types as types. such as .local Array a etc. (sorry can't check; don't have my own pc around here, this is a public pc) (I added some notes about this and other PIR cleanups in languages/PIR and I think also in compilers/pirc IIRC). IMHO, this is not needed; pmc is sufficient, and it'd be nice to keep PIR as simple as possible, after all it's an intermediate language. Moreover, everytime a built-in type is added (although not happening that often) the grammar would have to be updated to stay consistent. I second the suggestion from kjs. It isn't helpful to be able to say: .local Array my_string my_string = new String Regards, Bernhard -- /* [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
