On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 14:42, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> As far as methods go, I would think that the syntax would look exactly
> like method invocation, only you would provide an object on which to
> call the method, no?
Wow, that was a caffine overdose in progress please disregard that
incoherent
As far as methods go, I would think that the syntax would look exactly
like method invocation, only you would provide an object on which to
call the method, no?
Hmmm... I guess that brings up the question of signatures... are
signatures handled at the parrot level or the compiler level?
Pardon my
Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I right in thinking that IMCC v1 doesn't support objects/methods
> currently? And that IMCC v2 will, obviously, but IMCC v2 isn't usable
> yet?
Well, there is no special syntax inside imcc. So the first question is:
how should such syntax look like, and
First off, congratulations to Dan, Leo and everyone else involved
in Parrot 0.1.0. Great work.
Can someone give me a summary on where we stand with IMCC and objects/methods?
(I looked in a bunch of places in the CVS tree but couldn't find an answer.)
Am I right in thinking that IMCC v1 do
