Am Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 22:38 schrieb Allison Randal: > Leopold Toetsch wrote: > > Please don't. Opcodes are very limited re calling conventions. Mehthods > > are by far more flexible when it comes to pass arguments to compilers. > > I believe we've been through this conversation before. I don't mean > coding a completely different opcode, I just mean using the opcode > syntax to make (a standard form of) the method call.
Yes. But abstracting opcodes syntax to some method isn't implemented generally. It can be done, as experiments in src/builtin.c are showing. But I don't see any good reason to implement new features with some opcode syntax, when it'll be a method call anyway. > And, I do think making the PASM and PIR compilers capable of being used > as standard compiler objects is a superior solution. We currently can't pass any arguments to PASM/PIR compilers. You can't change trace or debug options for "eval". This is a serious limitation, which needs a flexible solution e.g. passing named args. Some syntactic sugar opcode syntax, which first has to be parsed as opcode, then be converted to a method call does really not help here - sorry. > Allison leo
