I have just committed basic support for optional arguments!
def foo(a:1)
puts a
end
foo # => 1
foo(2) # => 2
This compiles to two "foo" methods, shown here:
public static void foo(int);
Code:
0: getstatic #14; //Field java/lang/System.out:Ljava/io/PrintStream;
3: iload_0
4: invokevirtual #19; //Method java/io/PrintStream.println:(I)V
7: return
public static void foo();
Code:
0: iconst_1
1: invokestatic #24; //Method foo:(I)V
4: return
Pretty simple, eh?
Because we are currently using the optional argument syntax in the
parser, you need to wrap any non-literal expressions in a block of
code, as in...
def foo(a:begin; bar; end)
puts a
end
def bar
'hello'
end
foo # => 'hello'
I know it was easier to get the : declaration syntax into the parser
by reusing optional arguments, but I think it's going to be a problem
since we can no longer distinguish (easily) between normal declared
required arguments and declared optional arguments. I don't want
people to have to use begin/end to wrap things like this. Thoughts?
I also noticed that one of the other syntaxes doesn't appear to parse
right with the current parser:
def foo(a:String = 'blah')
...complains about a "dynamic constant assignment". I think we're
going to need that syntax to work...
P.S. It was getting late for me here, so I did not write any tests and
I have not added support to the .java compiler. TODO...feel free to
take them on.
- Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
