perl.cvs.parrot
[Top] [All Lists]

[svn:parrot] r21651 - trunk/languages/PIR/docs

Subject: [svn:parrot] r21651 - trunk/languages/PIR/docs
From:
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:06:00 -0700 PDT
Newsgroups: perl.cvs.parrot

Author: kjs
Date: Sat Sep 29 07:05:59 2007
New Revision: 21651

Modified:
   trunk/languages/PIR/docs/PROPOSALS

Log:
languages/PIR:
* remove accepted proposals from file PROPOSALS

Modified: trunk/languages/PIR/docs/PROPOSALS
==============================================================================
--- trunk/languages/PIR/docs/PROPOSALS  (original)
+++ trunk/languages/PIR/docs/PROPOSALS  Sat Sep 29 07:05:59 2007
@@ -27,30 +27,8 @@
         
         Proposal: remove them.
         
-2. The optional comma between sub pragmas.
-        Sub definitions allow for pragmas after the sub id, like so:
-               
-               .sub main :main :load :init
-               .end
-               
-        However, the pragmas *may* be separated by a comma, like so:
-        
-               .sub main :main, :load, :init
-               .end
-               
-        Proposal: remove the optional comma from the grammar. Parameter
-        flags are not separated by commas neither, so it would look more
-        consistent. An optional comma is kinda strange; either demand it,
-        or not.
-        
-3. :postcomp and :immediate
-        
-        According to the documentation, both flags indicate the same
-        behaviour. This is both unnecessary and unclear to new users.
         
-        Proposal: deprecate one of these flags and remove it afterwards.
-        
-4. Macro parameter list.
+2. Macro parameter list.
 
         Macro definitions may have parameters. However, if they don't take
         parameters, the parentheses are optional. So either of these examples
@@ -75,24 +53,7 @@
         uniform than having both forms in the PIR source code.
                 
                 
-5. .pcc_sub vs .sub
-               
-        What's the difference? Are both directives needed? Are there clear
-        advantages to have both?
-        
-        Proposal: remove '.pcc_sub', and stick to '.sub'
-        
-6. Disallow .pcc_begin_yield + .pcc_end_return
-
-        Currently, IMCC allows:
-               
-               .pcc_begin_yield
-               .return 1
-               .pcc_end_return
-               
-        It would be more consistent to demand '.pcc_begin_yield' to match 
'.pcc_end_yield'.
-        
-7. Change #line into .line
+4. Change #line into .line
        
         IMHO, it would be nicer to have the #line directive spelled as 
".line". This way,
         it's more clear it's not a comment but rather a directive saying to 
the assembler

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [svn:parrot] r21651 - trunk/languages/PIR/docs, kjs <=