Brian Lee Ray:
> I'm not a perl programmer <dons fireproof cloak>, I'm a C programmer,
Ooh good, we could do with a few more of those around... ;)
> >Need discussion on whether C<OUT_OF_BOUNDS> is a good exception for
> >this, or whether something else should be used. It's really a compiler
> >screw-up, since code which indexes a non-aggregate shouldn't be
> >generated.
> How about INVALID_KEY?
Sounds reasonable. Another suggestion I heard was INDEXING_NON_AGGREGATE.
> should all invoke an op named set_p_k_i. The KEY_PAIR structure already
> encodes the number of the arguments, and, while this does mean that all
> of the arguments have to be passed as constants, I can't think of a good
> reason for an agregate to have write access to it's keys.
The point is that we'd want to build the KEY_PAIRs as constants at
compile time; you only know the appropriate value of register keys at
runtime. Hence you can't fill in the whole of
set P1[123;S1], "foo"
until you get there and find out what S1 happens to be.
--
How do I type "for i in *.dvi do xdvi i done" in a GUI?
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of interfaces.)
