Peter Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
> Is there a reason that `op pop_pad(out PMC)' has not been
> implemented yet? (It's in ops/var.ops). If so, could someone give me a
> quick heads up as to that reason.
Forgotton? Anyway, it's in. Tests welcome.
> Pete
leo
Hi there,
Is there a reason that `op pop_pad(out PMC)' has not been
implemented yet? (It's in ops/var.ops). If so, could someone give me a
quick heads up as to that reason.
Thanks for the information,
Pete
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +op pop_pad(out PMC) {
> > +$1 = new_pmc_header(interpreter);
> > +stack_pop(interpreter, &interpreter->ctx.pad_stack,
> > + &$1, STACK_ENTRY_PMC);
> > goto NEXT();
>
>
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +op pop_pad(out PMC) {
> +$1 = new_pmc_header(interpreter);
> +stack_pop(interpreter, &interpreter->ctx.pad_stack,
> + &$1, STACK_ENTRY_PMC);
> goto NEXT();
Do we really need a new PMC header her
This patch is a collection of a few small fixes vaguely related to the
lexical pads. It implements pop_pad(out PMC), banishes Intval in
favor of INTVAL, and adds some newlines to internal_exception calls.
Luke
Index: core.ops
