Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from June 2001
--- Nick Ing-Simmons <nick@ing-simmons.net> wrote: > Benjamin Stuhl <tiriath@yahoo.com> writes: > >I don't see where shadow functions are really necessary > - > >after all, no one has ever complained that you can't do > > > >pp_chomp(sv); /* or pp_add(sv1, sv2), for that matter */ > > > >in Perl 5. > > Yes we did. And note the doop.c file which is part answer > to the shadows. True. I had forgotten about those. But what would be the point of shadowing most of the pp_hot.c functions? Who would ever _want_ to write 'sv = pp_gvsv(aTHX_ gv);'? > Given the inner functions we could presumable generate > the decode > functions (c.f. xsubpp) That would probably be the best. Mark whether the body needs a wrapper or not, and run it through a generator so pp_chomp or pp_concat are wrapped, but pp_rv2sv isn't. (op names stolen from Perl 5; who knows what they'll be called in Parrot). The other issue is list context. It'd probably be best to simply return a list ref (especially since that makes returnling lazy lists much easier). -- BKS __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/Thread Previous | Thread Next