Leopold Toetsch wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll continue with:
5) infix method signature change:
METHOD PMC* add( [INTERP, SELF,] PMC* rhs, PMC ´*dest) {
if (!dest)
dest = pmc_new(INTERP, SELF->vtable->base_type);
...
return dest;
}
If the destination PMC is passed in
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 08:42:53 +0200
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> . . .
>$ python
>>>> 1+2j
>(1+2j)
> That is a good point, but subclassing isn't the only w
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ..., since I assume an
> Int+String=>Number method will exist that coerces the string to a number
> first. I imagine you could do this by creating a subclass of Int,
> e.g. LispInt, and then defining a LispInt+
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:38:15 +0200
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:57:55 +0200
>
> ... , is that you are assuming (as I did not) that each and
>
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:57:55 +0200
>
> ... , is that you are assuming (as I did not) that each and
> every language built on top of Parrot will define its own PMC classes,
> even for primitive arithmetic t
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:57:55 +0200
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I was hoping for access to a lower-level mechanism. FWIW,
> Common Lisp is an example of a dynamic HLL that doesn't allow certain
> ops to be overload
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I was hoping for access to a lower-level mechanism. FWIW,
> Common Lisp is an example of a dynamic HLL that doesn't allow certain
> ops to be overloaded (at least not directly).
Overloading is a syntactic construct that the compiler supports (or
no
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:27:58 +0200
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, one can have too much overloading. It seems cleaner to
> distinguish between "+, the (sometimes overloaded) HLL operator" and
> "add, the Parrot additio
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> Why bother with the IS_NULL check if we have the "n_" variant already?
> Why not have one option unconditionally use the destination pmc and
> the other unconditionally create a new destination pmc?
I think, we can just have one method with the sam
Leo~
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:22:29 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 5) infix method signature change:
>
> >METHOD PMC* add( [INTERP, SELF,] PMC* rhs, PMC ´*dest) {
> > if (!dest)
> > dest = pmc_new(INTERP, SELF-
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5) infix method signature change:
>METHOD PMC* add( [INTERP, SELF,] PMC* rhs, PMC ´*dest) {
> if (!dest)
> dest = pmc_new(INTERP, SELF->vtable->base_type);
> ...
> return dest;
>}
> If the destination PMC is passed in, i
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo~
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:37:41 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5) infix method signature change:
>>
>>METHOD PMC* add( [INTERP, SELF,] PMC* rhs, PMC ´*dest) {
>> if (!dest)
>> dest = pmc_new(INTERP, SELF->vtable->b
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, one can have too much overloading. It seems cleaner to
> distinguish between "+, the (sometimes overloaded) HLL operator" and
> "add, the Parrot addition operator" so that compiled code can opt out of
> the overloading when the compiler knows that it
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:37:41 +0200
1) Mixed infix operations
Opcodes that take one PMC and one native type argument, like:
op add(in PMC, in PMC, in INT)
should probably become plain vtable methods again. There isn't much
"mu
Leo~
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:37:41 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5) infix method signature change:
>
>METHOD PMC* add( [INTERP, SELF,] PMC* rhs, PMC ´*dest) {
> if (!dest)
> dest = pmc_new(INTERP, SELF->vtable->base_type);
> ...
> return dest;
>
1) Mixed infix operations
Opcodes that take one PMC and one native type argument, like:
op add(in PMC, in PMC, in INT)
should probably become plain vtable methods again. There isn't much
"multi" in the dispatch as the dispatch degenerates to a search in the
class of the left argument's MRO. OTO
16 matches
Mail list logo
