Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-14 Thread Kay Roepke
Simon Glover wrote: Why not just use a macro? # .macro fortytwo (A) #set .A, 42 # .endm # # .fortytwo(I0) # print I0 # print "\n" # end Simon Shouldn't be The Answer a builtin? Kay

RE: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-14 Thread Gordon Henriksen
This is really a language feature; you should add it to the hq9+ implementation. -- Gordon Henriksen IT Manager ICLUBcentral Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Jos Visser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:21 AM > To: Perl6 Internals (parro

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-14 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:21:11PM +0200, Jos Visser wrote: > Accompanying patch adds the "fortytwo" op to Parrot, so the following > PASM becomes legal: > > fortytwo I0 > print I0 > print "\n" > end > > Example: > > $ ../parrot test42.pasm > 42 > > Sorry, could not res

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-14 Thread David H. Adler
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:57:11PM -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > This is really a language feature; you should add it to the hq9+ > implementation. Sadly, this was not considered when hq9+ was developed, so it's not actually part of the language. Maybe someone should develop and extended versi

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-11 Thread David H. Adler
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:33:03PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:20:46AM -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:57:11PM -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > > This is really a language feature; you should add it to the hq9+ > > > implementation. > > >

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-11 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:20:46AM -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:57:11PM -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > This is really a language feature; you should add it to the hq9+ > > implementation. > > Sadly, this was not considered when hq9+ was developed, so it's not > act

RE: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-10 Thread Gordon Henriksen
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:51PM -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:33:03PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:20:46AM -0400, David H. Adler wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:57:11PM -0400, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > > > This is really a languag

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-10 Thread Simon Glover
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jos Visser wrote: > Accompanying patch adds the "fortytwo" op to Parrot, so the following > PASM becomes legal: > > fortytwo I0 > print I0 > print "\n" > end > > Example: > > $ ../parrot test42.pasm > 42 > Why not just use a macro? # .macro fortyt

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-08 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Nicholas Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:21:11PM +0200, Jos Visser wrote: fortytwo I0 Shouldn't it be the what_do_you_get_if_you_multiply_six_by_nine op? Shouldn't it be the what_do_you_get_if_you_multiply_six_by_nine_then_subtract_twelve op? Nicholas Clark SCNR2, leo

RE: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-07 Thread Garrett Goebel
Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Jos Visser wrote: > >>fortytwo I0 > > > > Shouldn't it be the what_do_you_get_if_you_multiply_six_by_nine op? > > Shouldn't it be the > what_do_you_get_if_you_multiply_six_by_nine_then_subtract_twelve op? Just for those people who've missed

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-07 Thread Christian Renz
Shouldn't it be the what_do_you_get_if_you_multiply_six_by_nine_then_subtract_twelve op? No, it shouldn't. Meditate about it again and you will be enlightened. Hint: "Base 13". Greetings, Christian -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.web42.com/crenz/ - http://www.web42.com/ "The worst attitude o

Re: We *need* this op! :-)

2003-08-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Jos Visser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Accompanying patch adds the "fortytwo" op to Parrot, so the following > PASM becomes legal: > fortytwo I0 Pah, we need my dynpmc patch: load_pmc "foo", P0 new P0, .Foo set I0, P0 print I0 print "\n" en