Comments on: Programming PIR: Build applications in Parrot’s native programming language http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: bob9960 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/#comment-4895 bob9960 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/#comment-4895 "Unlike .local variables, the order and placement of the declarations matters. To a certain degree, Parrot’s default argument passing is positional. That is, it works like you expect; the first PMC parameter in the list at the point of the call is the first one you get in the parameter list.<br /> <br /> Interestingly, order matters only within a register set. These two parameter lists are equivalent:<br /> <br /> .param int count<br /> .param pmc item_to_repeat<br /> ...<br /> .param pmc item_to_repeat<br /> .param int count"<br /> <br /> -------------------------<br /> <br /> I find the above a little confusing, if the default argument passing is positional, then surely the lists are not equivalent. Maybe I miss the contextual meaning of "order matters only within a register set". “Unlike .local variables, the order and placement of the declarations matters. To a certain degree, Parrot’s default argument passing is positional. That is, it works like you expect; the first PMC parameter in the list at the point of the call is the first one you get in the parameter list.

Interestingly, order matters only within a register set. These two parameter lists are equivalent:

.param int count
.param pmc item_to_repeat
…
.param pmc item_to_repeat
.param int count”

————————-

I find the above a little confusing, if the default argument passing is positional, then surely the lists are not equivalent. Maybe I miss the contextual meaning of “order matters only within a register set”.

]]>