Re: pbr vs multiple returns
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm not too sure about the challenges in making the caller specify pbr but
> > could
> > it just be a mechanism like typechecking? Unless typechecking is turned off
> > then when the function is called the interpreter makes sure both the
> > definition
> > and the call itself has the 'ref' keyword.
>
> The challenge is that I have to rework the parser to be aware of when it's
> parsing arguments for a routine call, so that if it finds the PBR token,
> it can remember that. Also, if it finds that token anywhere else, it
> should cause an error.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to imply that there were no challenges but rather that
I myself am not familiar with all of the specifics that have to be changed. I had
the general idea though...
I'm reworking the Shootout program "reverse-complement" and I kind of wish that
I had pass-by-reference. However not having it is making me think a little harder
about how to write the program in a Euphoria way instead of just copying the C
straight over (as well as the other couple of languages that I'm looking at...)
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
