On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 10:38:11AM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote: > On So. 29. Apr. 2007, 06:01:16, kjs wrote: > > In r21167 the keyword 'object', as a synonym of 'pmc', was removed from > PIR. > However the question from kjs remains to be answered: > > > 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. > > I second the suggestion from kjs. It isn't helpful to be able to say: > > .local Array my_string > my_string = new String
In fact, I think many PIR programmers will find this confusing. Let's stick with 'pmc' for now -- we can extend it later if need be. Pm
