On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
>
>>
>> This must make the following syntax rule illegal:
>>
>> target = null
>>
>> because if "null" is declared as a .local, you can't know whether you want
>> to nullify target, or want to set target's value to that of the .local
>> variable "null".
>>
>> I take it this is no problem; just stick to
>>
>> null target
>>
>> if you actually want to set target to 0/null.
>>
>
> Yes, that's reasonable. The syntactic sugar was confusing in that case
> anyway. (Seemed like you were assigning a null value to the destination
> register, rather than nullifying the PMC in the destination register.)
>
> This belongs in a general category of opcodes where the standard
> transformation of "call the opcode with the first argument stuck before an
> '=' sign" doesn't really make sense.
>
> Allison
So, preferably, the special words in PIR will be allowed as identifiers
('if','unless', 'null') and PIR will DWIM. What about the type identifiers:
int, num, pmc, string; should these be allowed as identifiers? The currently
special PIR words such as if, unless, null are ops, and as opnames are
allowed as identifiers, allowing 'if', 'unless' and 'null' makes sense. The
type names on the other hand, are not related to PASM code, so I'd vote to
have them as 'reserved' words; but I'd just like to check now. (maybe the
general feeling is that there must be no reserved words in PIR...)
kjs
