RE: Hyphenated Op-Codes

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Larry Ducie wrote:

> Anyway, I get your point. I'm just saying that IBM have already introduced
> BIFs that can't be used in evaluation expressions or comparative expressions
> so we're already on our way down that road. I'm just suggesting we go
> further down that road: I would rather have %evalCorr() than EVAL-CORR. We
> could simply have it return a value that can be discarded if required - like
> callp. I like the flexibility in that.

Why have it be a BIF at all?  What you are describing is how normal 
(non-built-in) functions work.  I agree with your idea completely.  But 
then why make it a bif?  In fact, following this same logic, why have any 
BIFs at all?  Why %evalcorr() instead of evalcorr()?

I guess what I'm wondering is, what really distinguishes a BIF from just a 
normal function?  And is that difference so important and wonderful that 
it should be kept?

I agree it should not be an op-code.  Much better as a function.  IMO, 
languages should generally have few op-codes (add, subtract, multiply, 
divide, assign, a few others) and a rich function library.

James Rich

It's not the software that's free; it's you.
        - billyskank on Groklaw