On 5/9/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
> a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
> opcode. But that's just me.
That goes back to the philosophical question o
On 5/9/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> hi,
> IIRC (currently no pc around to check, but I realized this issue when
> reading on objects pdd), calling a method in PIR can be done as follows:
>
> $P0.'someMethod'()
>
> but also:
>
> .local string meth /* or m
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:38:42 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Correct, I was only referring to the case where a PMC is a
> String holding a method name -- I've not really come across that
> as being a common case in the programming that I do.
It's likely more important in languages where method nam
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:50:14AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> We could entirely disallow barenames, so it's always either a quoted
> string or a variable.
>
> But even that doesn't solve the problem, because currently if the method
> name is a string PMC:
>
> $P0 = new String
> $P0 = "h
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
opcode. But that's just me.
That goes back to the philosophical question of "Is PIR a language to be
generated by compilers, or is it
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
hi,
IIRC (currently no pc around to check, but I realized this issue when
reading on objects pdd), calling a method in PIR can be done as follows:
$P0.'someMethod'()
but also:
.local string meth /* or maybe a pmc ?*/
meth = 'someMethod'
$P0.meth()
This is a long-standi
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Well, since I've only come across a single case where the
method I needed to call was in a String PMC, I've never found
it annoying. But again, perhaps that's just me and it really is
a big annoyance to other PIR programmers. :-)
Oh, I was talking about a complete s
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >
> >Well, since I've only come across a single case where the
> >method I needed to call was in a String PMC, I've never found
> >it annoying. But again, perhaps that's just me and it really is
> >a big
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:15:51 Allison Randal wrote:
> Perhaps PIR's next stage of evolution is to split off into two
> languages, one for generation and one for humans.
William of Ockham told me to ask "What features of the PIR language suitable
for humans to write make it difficult for code t
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >
> >Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
> >a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
> >opcode. But that's just me.
>
> That goes back to the philo
hi,
IIRC (currently no pc around to check, but I realized this issue when
reading on objects pdd), calling a method in PIR can be done as follows:
$P0.'someMethod'()
but also:
.local string meth /* or maybe a pmc ?*/
meth = 'someMethod'
$P0.meth()
However, this looks like as if the object in
11 matches
Mail list logo
