PMC initialization

[Dan Sugalski]

Okay, it's time to address this. It's damned useful to be able to
pass in initialization data to a PMC--much more sensible to do it all
in one go, rather than separate new/init methods. And, unfortunately
that's somewhat problematic at the moment, as there are all sorts of
reasonable ways to pass in init data. So, time for a decision. Or,
rather, reopening of the discussion.

*unless* someone comes up with a Better Idea (this is your chance!),
lets go with two init methods. The first takes no parameters, as the
plain init does now, and builds an empty PMC. The seconds assumes its
parameters are in the registers, with standard calling conventions,
and goes from there.
--
Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
d...@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk

[Leopold Toetsch]

Dan Sugalski <d...@sidhe.org> wrote:
> The seconds assumes its
> parameters are in the registers, with standard calling conventions,
> and goes from there.

Seems to heavy to me. We already have init_pmc (taking one additional
initializer) and init_pmc_props, taking a NULL or real initializer PMC
plus one property hash. The property hash can take everything as well as
the first one. I currently don't see the need for more variants.

leo