jerry gay wrote:
yes, '.local' in a macro should mean the same thing as '.local' in
pir.
You've got it exactly.
to confuse the matter further, '.local' in a macro currently
means "create a unique label."
kjs's proposal changes that to '.label'
local in pir and macro language means crea
Joshua Isom wrote:
.sub bar
.declare_my_locals(foo)
local_declare_my_locals_foo = 5
print local_declare_my_locals_foo
...
.end
Those aren't meant to be accessed outside the macro. And imcc adds a
number to it to make it hard to guess and there's no incentive to do
that.
The probl
On Oct 23, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Hi, attached a document describing the current macro layer of IMCC.
On the proposed modifications to macros, I have reservations on the
automatic munging of .local variable names. Macros are simple
parameterized subst
On 10/23/07, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> > Hi, attached a document describing the current macro layer of IMCC.
>
> On the proposed modifications to macros, I have reservations on the
> automatic munging of .local variable names. Macros are simple
> parameteri
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Hi, attached a document describing the current macro layer of IMCC.
On the proposed modifications to macros, I have reservations on the
automatic munging of .local variable names. Macros are simple
parameterized substitutions. If someone includes a '.local' in a macro,
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Hi, attached a document describing the current macro layer of IMCC.
It describes the current situation and some proposals for improvement.
Thanks! Go ahead and roll this into PDD 19 under a "Macros" section.
Allison
Hi, attached a document describing the current macro layer of IMCC.
It describes the current situation and some proposals for improvement.
Comments are most welcome,
thanks.
kjs
macropdd.pod
Description: Binary data
