At 4:10 PM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to double-check--it's OK to register *any* sub as a compiler
module, though for right now it'll ultimately need to call compile
itself to either the pasm or pir compiler module and return the
result of
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to double-check--it's OK to register *any* sub as a compiler
> module, though for right now it'll ultimately need to call compile
> itself to either the pasm or pir compiler module and return the
> result of that, yes?
That's more a matter of definit
At 8:56 AM +0200 4/29/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks like compiler modules may be done in one of three ways:
1) A plain sub, which is passed in the string to compile and returns
a sub PMC that represents the compiled code (if it actually does
something
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like compiler modules may be done in one of three ways:
> 1) A plain sub, which is passed in the string to compile and returns
> a sub PMC that represents the compiled code (if it actually does
> something)
> 2) An NCI sub with the signature pIt
> 3)
As I dig through the source here, looking to nail down and make
permanent some stuff...
Looks like compiler modules may be done in one of three ways:
1) A plain sub, which is passed in the string to compile and returns
a sub PMC that represents the compiled code (if it actually does
something)
