Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yep - that's still doable, but not in the middle, which looks insane to
me anyway.
Not always, seems to me. Sometimes, in order to implement a defined
protocol (e.g. for a callback), you must accept a parameter that you
do
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:48:06 +0200
Bob Rogers wrote:
. . .
>To ignore a parameter, simply don't fetch it. To ignore a return,
> simply don't supply a register for it.
Yep - that's still doable, but not in the middle, which l
On 6/14/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .sub __add
> .param MyType $P0 :flags(0x40) # or @flags(0x40)? - inv. w/o colon
> (e.g.)
> .param $I0 :flags(0x20) # invocant with colon (e.g.)
...
> What do you think?
I think the typecodes are unnecessary
{Pre-Post-Script: After all this trouble below, which is hairy and yet
not even complete, parameter-by-parameter conversion is actually
starting to look good for complex cases. Despite all my reasons
against it. I start to suspect that we need both; that get_params
can be used for cases that
