On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I'm sure ssalc must mean something bad somewhere. Technically
> nothing is stopping us from using .end for everything since we
> are using a LALR parser and don't need fancy error reporting,
True enough. For machine-generated code it's irrelevant, so it doesn't
matter. Since it seems easier for people to have matching open/close
bracket things I went for the paired names. I doubt we'll have any nesting
inside the class declaration, though--I can't see any good reason for it.
> >Classes, when instantiated, have a backing namespace that's identical to
> >the class name.
>
> Good.
>
> So do we support :: or . for scope resolution? Or both?
::, I think. I think we decided a while back that the actual, in-stash
separator was a null byte, so we could have a language-neutral separator.
We can skip that for a bit, though.
> >It's OK for the code that handles PIR and assembly to ignore this for the
> >moment, at least until the metadata segment is better defined. Which will
> >be soon, though I'd rather someone else do the bytecode modification as
> >it's been a long time since I've had my hand in there.
>
> Well we can hide this under PIR. Once PIR is set, we can
> start by implementing on the fly class creation, then change
> IMCC to emit metadata when the rest is in. That way
> HL languages don't have to change later. For now we just have
> IMCC emit newclass, etc. and manually construct the classes.
Works. I should have the bytecode stuff spec'd today, with at least a
rudimentary implementation.
Dan
