Calling conventions

[Mike]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:50:16 +0100, Bill Baxter  
<dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:

> -real.inf on using XML for anything.

What's a better alternative to XML? I mean generally, not for this  
proposal. I'd really like to know that - a format that can represent trees  
easily and is easily readable.

> Anyway I don't really see the utility of separating the calling  
> convention from the place where the function is prototyped.  You need  
> both to call the function.  It's like putting the function names in one  
> file and all the parameters in another file.  I don't get why that would  
> be a good thing.

I thought because it's just too much information to put into the syntax  
(given that Walter thinks it's a good idea to support additional calling  
conventions). So an additional file with than information might be nice,  
and if it's XML or something similar DMC++ or a linker/debugger could use  
that information too, not only DMD.

-Mike

PS: Can't ... resist ...

I, for one, welcome our new XML-based bitmap image format:

<image name="screenshot.bmpx" width="800px" height="600px">
[snip]
<pixel id="D7A9-192B-48AD-F348" xpos="543" ypos="438"  
opacity="100%">#48B3D4</pixel>
[snip]
</image>