On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:13:57PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Leopold Toetsch writes: > >> But with one more indirection a PIC-like scheme can work with > >> read-only bytecode too (probably). E.g. the assembler emits instead > >> of the proposed: > >> > >> infix "__add", Pd, Pl, Pr > >> > >> this opcode: > >> > >> infix (.MMD_ADD << 24) | n, Pd, Pl, Pr > > > Just 256? Why don't you add another argument to the infix opcode? > > 256 diffent infix operations with the signature _p_p_p should doit it > for a while. If not the assembler can emit C<infix2> for the next bunch > of 256 :)
Can 2 different bytecode segments each try to define a new infix operator? If so, how do they number their infix operators to avoid a clash? Nicholas Clark
