At 09:41 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > I'm not entirely sure how much this'll be used, but I really, *really* want
> > to be able to call any sub that qualifies as an op rather than as a sub.
>
>What would a sub have to do (be?) to qualify?
It'd have to have a single return value, and a fixed, known number of
parameters, probably less than three, though I suppose there's no real
reason not to allow any number that'd fit in the register file.
> > >I don't understand this restriction. Won't it make implementing variadic
> > >functions more difficult?
> >
> > Varadic functions that take actual integers, floats, or strings, yes.
> > Varadic functions that take parrot variables (i.e. PMCs) no.
>
>Right, so why make the former hard? Is there an upside to the
>restriction?
Sure. We already have an aggregate PMC data type--the list. (The four base
PMC types are scalar, array, hash, and list. Lists can hold multiple lists,
arrays, hashes, and scalars, while arrays and hashes can only hold scalars)
We don't have anything similar for integer, string, or float registers, so
we'd have to build some thing or other to do it. Might as well just promote
the things to PMCs and pass in a list of them.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
