On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Jeff wrote: > Tests are now failing because of the removal of the 'inc_n_ic' opcode. I > find this interesting for several reasons. One, the tests probably > should have been removed. Two, once the 'inc' operator has two > parameters, it is no longer 'increment' in my mind. I would call > two-parameter 'inc' two-parameter 'add', as it's no longer the rough > equivalent of '$i++', but '$i+=5' or some such operation. > > If anyone would like 'inc_i_ic' and the like to still be called 'inc_', > speak within the next few days or hold your peace until someone else > decides to add them back to CVS. I'll rewrite the tests to 'add_n_ic' > and that ilk.
My local checkout has replaced 2-arg inc/dec with add/sub already, so that should save you some time, but one thing I noticed was that the 2-arg inc and dec opcodes are not mutually consistant with respect to the args that they take. Right now I have add_i_i, add_n_n, add_p_i but I have sub_i_i, sub_n_i, and sub_p_i. Note sub_n_i vs add_n_n. The question is, do we want all combos of i,p, and n? So add_i_i, add_n_i, add_p_i, add_i_n, add_n_n, add_p_n, add_i_p, add_n_p, add_p_p? Or is this too many ops? I am currently in the process of (a) reworking the tests and (b) being confused about the above. :-) - D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
