On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 11:13, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> >
> >Is there is reason not to s/\.constant/.const/g for consistency's sake?
>
> And actually, on further consideration, .const isn't what I want
> either.
Which doesn't invalidate my question. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And actually, on further consideration, .const isn't what I want
> either.
You are looking vor .sym/.local:
.local PerlHash BASICARR
.sub _main
BASICARR = new PerlHash
.arg "value"
.arg "x"
call _DIMENSION
.ar
At 11:13 AM 5/28/2003 -0400, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
# These are vastly simplified, but give you the idea
And of course, by "vastly simplified" I meant "completely wrong" because
the sample shown won't work because of the saveall and restoreall before
and after the array creation in _DIMENSION.
At 05:45 PM 5/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 08:01, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> At 11:57 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> >Perhaps "macros only work in assembler mode" is the issue?
> >
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14107.html
> >
> >Regards.
>
> It was
Bryan C. Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there is reason not to s/\.constant/.const/g for consistency's sake?
The difference is, that PASM did define an untyped variant:
.constant FOO 42
PIR Syntax is:
.const int FOO = 42
I'm ok with tossing the PASM variant, its barely used (only
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 08:01, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> At 11:57 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> >Perhaps "macros only work in assembler mode" is the issue?
> >
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14107.html
> >
> >Regards.
>
> It was, but I was looking for the "why" of it
