Re: [RFC] Parrot runtime include files and .constant macros

2004-01-09 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This also means .pasm files won't be able to .include these anymore,
 you'd have to use IMC.

Why not just make .const work in both modes?

 -Melvin

leo


Re: [RFC] Parrot runtime include files and .constant macros

2004-01-09 Thread Melvin Smith
At 08:58 AM 1/9/2004 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This also means .pasm files won't be able to .include these anymore,
 you'd have to use IMC.
Why not just make .const work in both modes?
Because pure PASM doesn't currently use type names.
.const expects a type of (int|string|num) and isn't the
same thing as .constant
-Melvin




[RFC] Parrot runtime include files and .constant macros

2004-01-08 Thread Melvin Smith
Since all of the Parrot includes are .pasm and are using the old .constant
directive, which was a macro expansion in the IMCC lexer, and
I've removed macros from IMCC, I have a pending patch to
parrot_include.pl and all of the parrot header files to change it to generate
.imc include files rather than .pasm for runtime/parrot/include
This also means .pasm files won't be able to .include these anymore,
you'd have to use IMC.
I didn't commit it because I'm not so sure removing .constant
is the right thing to do, but I'm also pretty sure I don't like
maintaining IMCC as the reference Parrot assembler. Sure,
I like that it can process PASM instructions, but I'm not a fan
of the other things (macros, etc.).
I don't like supporting 2 language modes in the same lexer/compiler.
Its confusing enough for beginners to remember that they can
use C.constant in a .PASM file, but in .IMC they have to use C.const.
And, oh by the way, .constant is done by the lexer, .const is handled
by the compiler. Yuck.
Anyone with opinions are asked to give their 2 cents here.

-Melvin