Comments on: Programming PIR: Build applications in Parrot’s native programming language http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:17:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: bob wilkinson http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/#comment-1390 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:57:24 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/4562/#comment-1390 "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". “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”.

]]>