From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:26:46 -0800
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
>I see the handwriting on the wall -- it says that someday soon,
> Parrot will insist on strict arg/return checking all the time.
"... b
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
>I see the handwriting on the wall -- it says that someday soon,
> Parrot will insist on strict arg/return checking all the time.
"... by default." :-)
> In order to support Common Lisp correctly (and efficiently), I would like
> to
From what I can tell, the biggest concern is how different languages
will want it done. Why not allow it to be hll specific? Perhaps
either using a .HLL directive or perhaps a sub with a :hll_init or
something that is called whenever entering that hll, so strictness can
be defined per hll and
From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:22:21 -0800
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:33:08AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> since we already have (as will reminded me) syntax that can be used to
> express this difference, and it's tested, i may as well mention it.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:33:08AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> since we already have (as will reminded me) syntax that can be used to
> express this difference, and it's tested, i may as well mention it.
>
> () = foo(42)
>
> works and is tested (the last two tests) in t/compilers/imcc/pcc.t.
No,
On 2/6/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:23:40AM +, Roger Browne wrote:
> > Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > > I'm struggling with good PIR syntax for it
> > > though ... Void calls will be common, so it'd be nice to express
> > > them easily.
> >
> > How abo
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:23:40AM +, Roger Browne wrote:
> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > I'm struggling with good PIR syntax for it
> > though ... Void calls will be common, so it'd be nice to express
> > them easily.
>
> How about a 'void' keyword:
>void foo(bar, baz)
Being the first propo
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> I'm struggling with good PIR syntax for it
> though ... Void calls will be common, so it'd be nice to express
> them easily.
How about a 'void' keyword:
void foo(bar, baz)
Roger
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 09:37:39PM +, Roger Browne wrote:
> Some languages (such as Amber and Eiffel) make a formal distinction
> between commands (which can change state but do not return a value) and
> queries (which return a value but cannot change state).
Interesting terminology.
> A solu
I wrote:
> > Some languages (including Amber) make a clear distinction between
> > queries (which return something) and commands (which return nothing).
> >
> > If possible, please make the "little less strict" checking of function
> > calls be optional [...]
Chip:
> Please detail this "query" vs
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 07:35:17PM +, Roger Browne wrote:
> In another thread, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > ... WRT return/results count mismatch, I think, this
> > should be a little less strict and allow 'void' function calls of
> > functions that return something [2]. But that's a differen
In another thread, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> ... WRT return/results count mismatch, I think, this
> should be a little less strict and allow 'void' function calls of
> functions that return something [2]. But that's a different issue.
Some languages (including Amber) make a clear distinction be
12 matches
Mail list logo
