Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from July 2002
Sure, that's pretty trivial to fix. What is the general concensus.
REINVOKE is fine with me, does that sound good?
----- Original Message -----
From: <steve@fink.com>
To: "Tanton Gibbs" <thgibbs@deltafarms.com>
Cc: <perl6-internals@perl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: pmc RECALL command for preprocessor
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 02:47:01PM -0400, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> >
> > The RECALL command automates that so that set_string now looks like:
> >
> > void set_string( PMC* value ) {
> > CHANGE_TYPE( pmc, PerlString );
> > RECALL;
> > }
> >
> > will be turned into the correct code shown above. By
> > using the RECALL command we get correct semantics
> > and no copy and paste bugs.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Any chance you could come up with another name? RECALL() to me
> immediately suggests 'recall', not 're-call'. REINVOKE()?
> DOITOVERAGAINBUTDOITRIGHTTHISTIME()? RE_CALL()? CHAIN()?
>
>
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next