This omission seems odd. Was this intentional?
A single pow_p_p_p op backed by a (non-MMD) vtable entry would make it easier to support code like the following:
Well, Python has a pow "vtable" slot. And it should be MMD.
Patches welcome, leo
Sam Ruby wrote:
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC arguments? Leopold Toetsch
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC arguments? Jeff Clites
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC arguments? Sam Ruby
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC arguments? Jeff Clites
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC arguments... Leopold Toetsch
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC argu... Jeff Clites
- Re: No C<pow> op with PMC ... Leopold Toetsch
- Re: No C<pow> op with ... Jeff Clites
- Re: No C<pow> op with ... Leopold Toetsch
- Re: No C<pow> op with ... Jeff Clites
- Re: No C<pow> op with ... Dan Sugalski
