On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:25:13PM -0500, Matt Diephouse wrote: > Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Therefore, I propose requiring people to spell aliasing as ':='. > > "And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and > sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, > and fruit-bats and large chu..."
Skip ahead, Father. > > So here's the lowdown: > > > > P0 := P1 # aliasing: P0 and P1 point to same PMC > > P0 := opcode # aliasing: P0 points to PMC returned by opcode > > P0 = ... # assignment: modifies P0, NO MATTER WHAT '...' IS > > Does that mean that `P0 = ...` is the same thing as `assign P0, ...`? Yup. (BTW, I could imagine that access to assignment via the named 'assign' opcode could go away. But there's no need, really.) > Or, perhaps more accurately, `P1 := ...\n assign P0, P1`? No, PIR doesn't do that kind of thing (allocating P registers) behind your back. If a sequence needs a second P register, PIR will make you name it. Somewhere. Otherwise you'd be unable to e.g. control object lifetime by nulling the register. (Right, Leo?) -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
