Dan --
> > > > * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
> > > > print_s_v.
> > >
> > > Nope. No vararg ops! :)
> >
> >It might help forestall future flamewars if you explained why.
>
> *) Sheer personal preference, which I realize is a lousy reason. (But
> better to
> We'll be introspective, but probably differently. We at least need to do
> things in ways both perl and python can easily stomach, and I think that's
> going to end up looking different than this will.
>
And ruby ;-)
Benoit
Uri --
> NT> Dan Sugalski writes:
> >> > * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
> >> > print_s_v.
> >>
> >> Nope. No vararg ops! :)
>
> NT> It might help forestall future flamewars if you explained why.
>
> this has been covered several times before. f
Dan --
> > * Registers C0-C31 contain code (CV's)
>
> At the moment I'm not leaning towards special registers for code. Subs will
> just be another type of PMC, and use the PMC registers.
Special C* regs or P* regs with CV values both work fine for what
I'm talking about (I refuse to actuall
At 01:33 PM 10/5/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > > * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
> > > print_s_v.
> >
> > Nope. No vararg ops! :)
>
>It might help forestall future flamewars if you explained why.
*) Sheer personal preference, w
> "NT" == Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NT> Dan Sugalski writes:
>> > * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
>> > print_s_v.
>>
>> Nope. No vararg ops! :)
NT> It might help forestall future flamewars if you explained why.
this has b
Dan Sugalski writes:
> > * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
> > print_s_v.
>
> Nope. No vararg ops! :)
It might help forestall future flamewars if you explained why.
> We'll be introspective, but probably differently. We at least need
> to do things in ways bot
At 12:40 PM 10/5/2001 -0400, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> * Registers C0-C31 contain code (CV's)
At the moment I'm not leaning towards special registers for code. Subs will
just be another type of PMC, and use the PMC registers.
> * push_c_i_i_i_v has to be a varop (see my recent posting with
>
All --
In the interest of completely twisting your brain...
Imagine what this piece of code could do:
clear C1
const C1, I1, "Hello, "
const C1, I2, "world!\n"
const C1, I3, ":CORE"
const C1, I4, "print_sc"
const C1, I5, "ret"
push C1, I6, I3, I4, I1
push
