At 05:36 PM 9/12/2001 -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
>All --
>
>BTW, Here are some things to consider:
>
> * The recognition of register types means that you can't use labels
> like 'I4'. It would be nice if registers and labels were in
> different namespaces.
I don't think this is necessary. Odds are almost nobody'll be writing
parrot assembler once we have a working parser/compiler combo to generate
the bytecode automatically, so I don't think it's worth the effort. Simple
is OK at this level. :)
> * I put a hack in there to deal with the constant-ification of
> strings. If you look closely, you'll see that I changed the
> mapping from string --> integer to string --> "$x", where x
> is an integer. Then, I use the leading '$' to mean "Hey! this
> number that follows is part of the constant pool!"
Now that's interesting. I'm not sure I like it, but I'm not sure I don't
either. No reason not to, I suppose.
> What do folks think about named registers?
Don't think this is worth it.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
