Regrettably, this won't be committed for 0.0.12 release since it is
definitely new
feature. If I commit now Leo would probably pummel me with flaming pumpkins,
so I'm going to play nice and follow the rules.
This is what I have currently in my working copy of imcc. I think this does
what we want
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I'm sure ssalc must mean something bad somewhere. Technically
> nothing is stopping us from using .end for everything since we
> are using a LALR parser and don't need fancy error reporting,
True enough. For machine-generated code it's irrelevant, so it
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Joseph Ryan wrote:
> Will there be a way to specify which methods belong to the class in the
> metadata? Or will Method namespaces just have to match class names so
> that a lookup can be done?
Hadn't planned on having any particular declaration of methods, no. If
there was
At 02:55 PM 10/21/2003 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Here's the scoop:
Metadata for classes is simple. In PIR/assembly, they're noted with
.things:
.class Foo
.is bar
.is baz
.does some_thing
.member x
.member y
.member z
.ssalc
Unless someone tells me that ssalc is horrib
At 07:44 PM 10/21/2003 -0400, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Here's the scoop:
Metadata for classes is simple. In PIR/assembly, they're noted with
.things:
.class Foo
.is bar
.is baz
.does some_thing
.member x
.member y
.member z
.ssalc
Will there be a way to specify w
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Here's the scoop:
Metadata for classes is simple. In PIR/assembly, they're noted with
.things:
.class Foo
.is bar
.is baz
.does some_thing
.member x
.member y
.member z
.ssalc
Unless someone tells me that ssalc is horribly obscene in some relatively
common
Here's the scoop:
Metadata for classes is simple. In PIR/assembly, they're noted with
.things:
.class Foo
.is bar
.is baz
.does some_thing
.member x
.member y
.member z
.ssalc
Unless someone tells me that ssalc is horribly obscene in some relatively
common language, a
