Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 7:45 AM +0100 12/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >>Thinking more about that it seems that we don't have much chance to keep >>the current scheme that the destination is passed in.
> I fully expected this to be an issue. Perl 5 and perl 6 are going to > have different conventions, (and I think there may well be at least > two separate ones for perl 6, but I may be misrememebering) Ruby > doesn't match, and neither do any of the other languages. [ ... ] > Nothing much for it -- no matter what we choose it's going to be > wrong for someone, so the sensible thing to do is choose the scheme > that works best for the underlying model (which we have) and leave it > to compilers and class libraries to translate to their own preferred > form. I think we're likely to find that the scheme we have catches on > reasonably well once we've hit release and start seeing widespread > use. Shouldn't the underlying model be at least near the expectations of HLLs we want to support? It doesn't buy us anything, if we force all languages to create wrappers. And "works best for the underlying model" just means the code exists. Finally the current implementation can't handle singletons (like PyNone) as a return result from such opcodes. leo
