Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:10 AM +0100 3/16/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Syntax proposal: .sub foo @MULTI .invocant Integer a .invocant Float b .param pmc c ... Alternate syntax: .sub foo multi(Integ

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-15 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >.sub foo multi(Integer, pmc: String) > .param pmc a > .param pmc b > .param pmc c >- try to dispatch on the first two types in the first place >- if there is a tie,

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-15 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Syntax proposal: >>.sub foo @MULTI >> .invocant Integer a >> .invocant Float b >> .param pmc c >> ... > Alternate syntax: > .sub foo multi(Integer, Float) > .param pmc a >

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-15 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:52:38 +0100 Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if one wants the first and third arguments to be the invocants? > Then the first syntax gives >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-15 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if one wants the first and third arguments to be the invocants? > Then the first syntax gives >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .param pmc b > .invocant String c That should better be >.sub foo @MULTI

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:38 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote: > What if one wants the first and third arguments to be the invocants? > Then the first syntax gives > >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .param pmc b > .invocant String c > ... > > But it's no

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:02:30 +0100 Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Syntax proposal: >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .invocant Float b > .param pmc c > ... Alternate syntax:

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 14:02 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Syntax proposal: > > >.sub foo @MULTI > > .invocant Integer a > > .invocant Float b > > .param pmc c > > ... > > Alternate syntax: > > .sub foo multi(Integer,

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Jonathan Worthington
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Syntax proposal: .sub foo @MULTI .invocant Integer a .invocant Float b .param pmc c ... Alternate syntax: .sub foo multi(Integer, Float) .param pmc a .param pmc b .param pmc c I

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Syntax proposal: >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .invocant Float b > .param pmc c > ... Alternate syntax: .sub foo multi(Integer, Float) .param pmc a .param pmc b .param pmc c I'm now more inclined towa

[PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
I prefer test first programming. Therefore we need some syntax to get multi subs into the assembler. Albeit we even have two sets of MMD function registering opcodes (object.ops:mmd* , pmc.ops:mmdvt*) these are not adequate to implement a general MMD scheme. The opcodes allow just 2-dimensional