--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:45 AM -0700 8/1/03, TOGoS wrote: > > ...blah, blah, blah... > > > > What I don't like about this is > > that it's not immediately obvious > > from looking at the code whether > > you're telling P3 to change its > > value or simply replace the PMC > > reference stored in P3 with another. > > This is a reasonable thing to worry > about, because we have three separate > semantics, set, assign, and clone.
Well, yes. I understand what set, assign, and clone do. :-) What I was whining about was that 'set' doesn't consistantly copy pointers. If you say set PMC, PMC it copies a pointer, but if you say set PMC, Int it behaves like 'assign'. I just thought it might be better if you had to be explicit about what you were doing. If you want assign semantics, you should have to say "assign". So set PMC, Int would be illegal, since you can't copy an integer to a PMC pointer. You would be forced to say what you really meant, which is assign PMC, Int And likewise for strings. (At the moment, I am forced to use 'set' for strings, because assign S0, 23 throws a 'can't find assign_s_ic' error.) I just thought that it might save people from a few headaches if "set" always meant the same thing :-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
