Re: Methods and IMCC
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So long as you can also do > .meth_call "foo", PReturnContinuation This is implemented already. leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>>Calling a method:
>>>
>>>object.variable(pararms)
>>
>>Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
>>
>>.pcc_begin
>>.arg x
>>.meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
>>.result r
>>.pcc_end
>
> Sure. Or we could make it:
>
> .pcc_begin
> .arg x
> .object y
> .meth_call "foo"
> .result r
> .pcc_end
>
> to make things simpler.
So long as you can also do
.meth_call "foo", PReturnContinuation
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. Or we could make it: > .pcc_begin > .arg x > .object y > .meth_call "foo" > .result r > .pcc_end Done. modulo s/\.object/.invocant/ leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
At 8:34 PM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... (Though arguably anything you make a method call on really is an object :) or a class. Well... only because classes are objects. Or objects are classes. Possibly both, this OO stuff confuses me sometimes. -- Dan --"it's like this"--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... (Though arguably > anything you make a method call on really is an object :) or a class. leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
At 9:57 AM -0800 3/12/04, Steve Fink wrote:
On Mar-12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>Calling a method:
>>
>> object.variable(pararms)
>
>Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
>
> .pcc_begin
> .arg x
> .meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
> .result r
> .pcc_end
Sure. Or we could make it:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.object y
.meth_call "foo"
.result r
.pcc_end
to make things simpler.
I vote yes -- until we add AST input to imcc, making the args and
invocant be line-oriented makes code generation easier for the Perl6
compiler, at least. (Although I might do it the 1st way anyway, just
because I spend so much time staring at generated code.)
But I had to stare at the ".object" for a second before I realized you
weren't just giving the type of another arg -- would it be better to
use ".invocant"?
I don't care either way. Invocant isn't bad as you can do this with
non-object things, so object's not quite right. (Though arguably
anything you make a method call on really is an object :)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Re: Methods and IMCC
On Mar-12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >>Calling a method:
> >>
> >> object.variable(pararms)
> >
> >Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
> >
> > .pcc_begin
> > .arg x
> > .meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
> > .result r
> > .pcc_end
>
> Sure. Or we could make it:
>
>.pcc_begin
>.arg x
>.object y
>.meth_call "foo"
>.result r
>.pcc_end
>
> to make things simpler.
I vote yes -- until we add AST input to imcc, making the args and
invocant be line-oriented makes code generation easier for the Perl6
compiler, at least. (Although I might do it the 1st way anyway, just
because I spend so much time staring at generated code.)
But I had to stare at the ".object" for a second before I realized you
weren't just giving the type of another arg -- would it be better to
use ".invocant"?
Re: Methods and IMCC
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Calling a method:
object.variable(pararms)
Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
.result r
.pcc_end
Sure. Or we could make it:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.object y
.meth_call "foo"
.result r
.pcc_end
to make things simpler.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Calling a method:
object.variable(pararms)
Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.meth_call PObj, ("meth" | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
.result r
.pcc_end
leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Method declarations: > .pcc_sub foo prototyped, method >.param pmc foo >.param pmc bar > .end > That is, you add a method on the end of the sub declaration line. If > you do so, the local self refers to the object pmc register. Done. .namespace [ "Foo" ] .sub _meth method print "in meth\n" isa $I0, self, "Foo" ... *If* a sub is declared as C, C is a valid identifier refering to C. leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
At 2:15 PM +0100 3/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) object."literal name"(params) Done. Woohoo! -- Dan --"it's like this"--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Calling a method: > object.variable(pararms) > object."literal name"(params) Done. leo
Re: Methods and IMCC
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Time to nail down some method syntax for IMCC. So, what I'd like (and > this is open to discussion) is: > Calling a method: > object.variable(pararms) Ok. > object."literal name"(params) A currently already implemented variant is: object.label(params) where label is an unquoted string. I'll do the other two variants tomorrow, if they aren't done - seems simple now:) > Method declarations: > .pcc_sub foo prototyped, method >.param pmc foo >.param pmc bar > .end > That is, you add a method on the end of the sub declaration line. If > you do so, the local self refers to the object pmc register. (I am OK > with unconditionally doing this, in which case we should define some > other guaranteed aliases) alternative syntax: .self me # declare PMC P2 as var me so .pcc_sub foo prototyped, method is .pcc_sub foo prototyped ... .self self which is actually .local pmc self self := P2 leo
Methods and IMCC
Time to nail down some method syntax for IMCC. So, what I'd like (and this is open to discussion) is: Calling a method: object.variable(pararms) object."literal name"(params) that is, if the method is referenced with a string register or .local you use the first form and just name the register or local. On the other hand, making a method call with an actual literal string you put the method in quotes. Method declarations: .pcc_sub foo prototyped, method .param pmc foo .param pmc bar .end That is, you add a method on the end of the sub declaration line. If you do so, the local self refers to the object pmc register. (I am OK with unconditionally doing this, in which case we should define some other guaranteed aliases) -- Dan --"it's like this"--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
