Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
We might want to resurrect the 'compile' opcode as an indirect syntax
for making the 'compile' method call.
Maybe, but I can't see that this is worthy of a special opcode
(and presumably a vtable slot?). There's just not a lot of
difference between:
$P0 =
Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 05:52 schrieb Allison Randal:
We might want to resurrect the 'compile' opcode as an indirect syntax
for making the 'compile' method call.
Please don't. Opcodes are very limited re calling conventions. Mehthods are by
far more flexible when it comes to pass
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Please don't. Opcodes are very limited re calling conventions. Mehthods are by
far more flexible when it comes to pass arguments to compilers.
I believe we've been through this conversation before. I don't mean
coding a completely different opcode, I just mean using
Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 22:38 schrieb Allison Randal:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Please don't. Opcodes are very limited re calling conventions. Mehthods
are by far more flexible when it comes to pass arguments to compilers.
I believe we've been through this conversation before. I don't
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
And, I do think making the PASM and PIR compilers capable of being used
as standard compiler objects is a superior solution.
We currently can't pass any arguments to PASM/PIR compilers. You can't change
trace or debug options for eval. This is a serious limitation,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Or, in claiming that compilers have an API, should we instead
say that the canonical compilation sequence is to use compreg
to obtain a compiler object (not an invokable sub), and then
compile the source via a 'compile' method on the compiler object?
For example:
On 11/9/06, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinions welcome. Personally I think I favor the a compiler is
an object with a 'compile' method model, and that Ccompreg gives
us back a compiler object as opposed to a subroutine-like thing.
For the record, it was decided (Allison++)
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:52:47PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
Also for the record from the weekly meeting (which was actually today,
just a very long today): Yes, compilers are objects and compilation is a
method call. The compiler for TGE tree grammars is implemented this way,
and it's
On 11/9/06, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinions welcome. Personally I think I favor the a compiler is
an object with a 'compile' method model, and that Ccompreg gives
us back a compiler object as opposed to a subroutine-like thing.
Would it not be possible to support both? A
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:55:05AM -0200, Adriano Rodrigues wrote:
On 11/9/06, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinions welcome. Personally I think I favor the a compiler is
an object with a 'compile' method model, and that Ccompreg gives
us back a compiler object as opposed to a
Historically Parrot has considered a compiler to be an
invokable subroutine, such that the canonical sequence for
compiling something is:
.local string perl6_source
.local pmc perl6_compiler
perl6_compiler = compreg 'Perl6'
$P0 = perl6_compiler(perl6_source)
However,
11 matches
Mail list logo
