On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > >Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from > >a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method > >opcode. But that's just me. > > That goes back to the philosophical question of "Is PIR a language to be > generated by compilers, or is it a language for humans to use?" It's > about half-way in between at the moment, and the conflict shows. > > For generated code, it's no problem to require a methodname lookup for > every call. For hand-written code it's insanely annoying (which is the > reason the syntactic sugar was introduced in the first place).
Well, since I've only come across a single case where the method I needed to call was in a String PMC, I've never found it annoying. But again, perhaps that's just me and it really is a big annoyance to other PIR programmers. :-) There's also the point that find_method isn't sufficient if we need the method call to use :multi semantics. But I'm also unsure about that, because I've yet to run across the need for that one. Pm
