Calling conventions

[Bill Baxter]

Mike wrote:
> 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.

Lisp.
Or YAML, or JSON.  All much more readable than XML.

>> 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.

I see.  I misread your original proposal as suggesting that the calling 
convention for each function in a file be documented in a separate file. 
  I didn't completely missed that you were talking about a way to 
declare _new_ calling conventions.  My bad.

I don't know much about calling conventions.  Are tehre really that many 
out in the wild?  If DMD doesn't support some of the ones that are in 
use, maybe the more reasonable thing would be to just add those.

--bb