Re: Grammars for future languages

sethml@dice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Seth M. LaForge)
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:10:09 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
Re: Grammars for future languages macrakis@osf.org (1995-11-10)
Re: Grammars for future languages mfinney@inmind.com (1995-11-12)
Re: Grammars for future languages RWARD@math.otago.ac.nz (Roy Ward) (1995-11-13)
Re: Grammars for future languages macrakis@osf.org (1995-11-13)
Re: Grammars for future languages rekers@wi.leidenuniv.nl (1995-11-14)
Re: Grammars for future languages egouriou@CS.UCLA.EDU (Eric Gouriou) (1995-11-16)
Re: Grammars for future languages sethml@dice.ugcs.caltech.edu (1995-11-21)
Re: Death by error checks. Terry_Madsen@mindlink.bc.ca (1995-11-30)
Re: Death by error checks. cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-11-30)
Re: Death by error checks. sethml@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (1995-12-09)
Re: Death by error checks. veeru@hpclearf.cup.hp.com (Veeru Mehta) (1995-12-17)
Re: Death by error checks. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-12-19)
heuristic optimizations [was "Death by error checks."] mcintosh@rice.edu (1995-12-19)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: sethml@dice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Seth M. LaForge)
Keywords: syntax, design
Organization: California Institute of Technology
References: 95-10-103 95-10-140 95-11-120
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:10:09 GMT

On Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:29:10 GMT, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis@osf.org> wrote:
>davids@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (David Petrie Stoutamire) writes:
>
> ...[in Sather,] there deliberately isn't any way to redefine
> assignment `:='...
>
>There is a good argument to be made that assignment should be
>overloadable. Here are a few of the standard examples where it's a
>good idea:


Of course, in Sather, for objects of reference classes, := only copies
references to objects (pointers, for you C types), meaning it's not
actually changing objects. Objects of value classes are considered
immutable and should be small, so it makes sense for := to be a
bitwise copy; conceptually there's one copy of every possible value of
an immutable type, i.e. such as integers. If you want to actually do
object duplication you typically use a .copy method (a := b.copy),
which can of course be overriden.


Seth
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.