On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> code destination, dest_key, source1, source1_key, source2, source2_key
>
> The key parameters are optional, and may be either an integer or a
> string. [...] Any time a source or destination can be a PMC register,
> there may be a key.
>
> According to this document the set_p_n_i notation would be wrong. But
> I already heard that the index-system is a moving target.
In this case, I'd prefer you trusted the documentation. :)
> Anyway, I think a PMC-valued get/set-element method is necessary.
Yes. Basically all the vtable methods would get an equivalent whereby
each parameter is followed by a key of type KEY*.
> * Use special operation names for the indirect operations like
> get_indirect and indirect_set and use the signature p_p_i for both
I guess this.
> * Use special assmbly-constructs for the optional key like
> set PO[I1], P1 or P0;I1, P1
How we disguise this in the assembler isn't really relevant.
> * Introduce a new register-type for Keys.
No, I don't think this is the right way.
--
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
- Alan Perlis
