hi, related to this, I think that imcc also allows for built-in types as types. such as ".local Array a" etc. (sorry can't check; don't have my own pc around here, this is a public pc) (I added some notes about this and other PIR cleanups in languages/PIR and I think also in compilers/pirc IIRC).
IMHO, this is not needed; "pmc" is sufficient, and it'd be nice to keep PIR as simple as possible, after all it's an intermediate language. Moreover, everytime a built-in type is added (although not happening that often) the grammar would have to be updated to stay consistent. my 2c, kjs On 4/28/07, via RT Jerry Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay # Please include the string: [perl #42769] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # <URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42769 > it seems that 'object' is a reserved word in imcc, it's a synonym for 'pmc'. it seems undocumented, and i don't see a reason for it--we already have a word for 'pmc'. D:\usr\local\parrot\head>parrot - .sub main .local pmc object .end ^Z error:imcc:syntax error, unexpected OBJECTV, expecting IDENTIFIER in file '-' line 2 sure enough, i can create a '.local object foo': D:\usr\local\parrot\head>parrot - .sub main .local object foo foo = new 'String' foo = 'bar' say foo .end ^Z bar i suggest we deprecate 'object'. ~jerry
