On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 06:23:42AM -0700, I Sop wrote:
> > From: Patrick R. Michaud via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 02:16:01PM -0700, I Sop wrote:
> > >
> > > I just copied the 'attribute' method, renamed
> > > everything, and changed the parameter order for the
> > > 'getprop' op.
> >
> > Why should this be a PAST::Var node as opposed to simply
> > using a PAST::Op node with :pirop('getprop') and/or
> > :pirop('setprop') ?
>
> Why is this different than attribute access?
I don't know -- I didn't add the attribute access code either. :-)
I'll have to think about it some. But the intent of PCT is to
model the most common constructs that appear in HLLs, not to
provide a separate node type for every possible construct
or operation that happens to be available.
So it may just come down to the fact that there are a lot of HLLs
that make use of object attribute access, but very few that
do properties.
Stated another way: I'm just looking for a compelling use case
that indicates that we really ought to have property support
in PAST::Var before actually adding it. The ideal use case for
PCT is "because it makes writing a compiler easier", but I probably
want to see examples.
Pm
