On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Melvin Smith wrote: > > I still prefer infix notation to prefix notation for an intermediate > > language. > > The current infix notation is fine. It makes intermediate code, and > perl6 IMCC code generation more readable. > > Sean (IMHO) is not trying to give it up.
Well, Sean's not quite sure about that. I agree with Melvin that using PASM syntax for IMCC could make it harder to target other platforms. However, I'm leery of learning yet another syntax and maintaining yet another language. Also, Parrot's opcodes and basic types are different from those of most other machines out there, so targeting other platforms sounds difficult enough to be unlikely. Furthermore, we're going to have prefix/pasm syntax for some ops -- there are simply too many ops and not enough ASCII characters -- and mixed infix/prefix syntax is ugly. I don't have strong opinions about this so long as it's possible to get at all of Parrot through IMCC. With the current CVS code, this is not the case, and my opinions are a bit stronger ;). > - infix notation (and imcc internals) are currently limited to > 4 registers per instruction, so what about: Agreed -- we need to change this to conform to parrot/opcode.h's PARROT_MAX_ARGS. /s
