Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-16 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So long as you can also do > .meth_call "foo", PReturnContinuation This is implemented already. leo

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-16 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >>Dan Sugalski wrote: >> >>>Calling a method: >>> >>>object.variable(pararms) >> >>Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too: >> >>.pcc_begin >>.arg x >>.meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMe

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-13 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. Or we could make it: > .pcc_begin > .arg x > .object y > .meth_call "foo" > .result r > .pcc_end Done. modulo s/\.object/.invocant/ leo

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 8:34 PM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... (Though arguably anything you make a method call on really is an object :) or a class. Well... only because classes are objects. Or objects are classes. Possibly both, this OO stuff confuses me sometimes

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... (Though arguably > anything you make a method call on really is an object :) or a class. leo

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:57 AM -0800 3/12/04, Steve Fink wrote: On Mar-12, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: >Dan Sugalski wrote: > >>Calling a method: >> >> object.variable(pararms) > >Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too: > > .pcc_begin > .arg x > .m

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Steve Fink
On Mar-12, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > >Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > >>Calling a method: > >> > >> object.variable(pararms) > > > >Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too: > > > > .pcc_begin > > .arg x > > .meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth )

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too: .pcc_begin .arg x .meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ] .result r .pcc_end Sure. Or we could m

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-12 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski wrote: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too: .pcc_begin .arg x .meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ] .result r .pcc_end leo

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Method declarations: > .pcc_sub foo prototyped, method >.param pmc foo >.param pmc bar > .end > That is, you add a method on the end of the sub declaration line. If > you do so, the local self refers to the object pmc register.

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 2:15 PM +0100 3/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) object."literal name"(params) Done. Woohoo! -- Dan --"it's like this"

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Calling a method: > object.variable(pararms) > object."literal name"(params) Done. leo

Re: Methods and IMCC

2004-03-10 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Time to nail down some method syntax for IMCC. So, what I'd like (and > this is open to discussion) is: > Calling a method: > object.variable(pararms) Ok. > object."literal name"(params) A currently already implemented variant is: object.la

Methods and IMCC

2004-03-10 Thread Dan Sugalski
Time to nail down some method syntax for IMCC. So, what I'd like (and this is open to discussion) is: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) object."literal name"(params) that is, if the method is referenced with a string register or .local you use the first form and just name the r