Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Proposal: PIR syntax enhancement
>.pragma n_operators
>...
>Px = Py + 1
>...
>[EOF]
> Within this pragma (valid inside and until end of file) the shortcuts
> '+', '-', ... should translate to "n_add", "n_sub", ...
> This simplif
Bob Rogers wrote:
Also, I notice that n_ceil and n_floor are not implemented. Should
they be?
floor, ceil is currently implemented for native types only. As long as
we don't have PMC variants, we don't have n_ceil and n_floor either.
I don't know, if we need PMC variants and vtable functions.
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have started writing a t/op/n_arithmetics.t test, based directly on
> t/op/arithmetics.t.
Great, thanks.
> ... But I notice that if I try
> P0 = n_add P0, 1
> I get the error:
Accidentally converted to an inplace operation. Is fixed here already
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:18:25 +0200
1) we now have a rather complete set of opcodes that return a new result
PMC, all prefixed by "n_", e.g.
n_add Px, Py, 1
n_abs Px, Py
. . .
2) Tests for all these opcodes are very welc
Jerry Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) Proposal: PIR syntax enhancement
>>
>> .pragma n_operators
>> ...
>> Px = Py + 1
>> ...
>> [EOF]
>>
>> Within this pragma (valid inside and until end of file) the shortcuts
>> '+', '-', ...
On 4/29/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Proposal: PIR syntax enhancement
>
> .pragma n_operators
> ...
> Px = Py + 1
> ...
> [EOF]
>
> Within this pragma (valid inside and until end of file) the shortcuts
> '+', '-', ... should translate to "n_add", "n_sub", ...
> Th
1) we now have a rather complete set of opcodes that return a new result
PMC, all prefixed by "n_", e.g.
n_add Px, Py, 1
n_abs Px, Py
These opcodes can/should be used by HLLs like Python, which have the
semantics of immutable scalars and newly created result PMCs.
2) Tests for all these opc
