Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That is you pass (3, _AV_x[0], ... _AV_x[i], _AV_y[0], ...).
> Ok, we don't seem to be communicating. Ok. Restart. Brain reset. I had a thinko somewhere. > I proposed .args simply because it seemed easier to implement than > runtime .arg directives. Would you prefer that the call be done like > this?: > .pcc_begin non_prototyped > .arg 3 > $I0 = 0 > $I1 = _AV_x > _arg_loop: > if $I2 >= $I0 goto _next_arg_1 > .arg _AV_x[$I0] > $I0 = $I0 + 1 > goto _arg_loop > _next_arg_1: No. But you are right. That's the code (/s\$I2/\$I1/) that ".args" should produce. Perhaps we shoud name the directive ".flatten_arg". Is it supposed to do deep flattening? Do we need ".deeply_flatten_arg" too? leo - sorry for my misleading and obviously wrong answers.
