Using NULLLAM
|
02-20-2014, 02:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-20-2014 03:26 AM by DavidM.)
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Using NULLLAM
(02-19-2014 09:26 PM)David Hayden Wrote: I've recently seen code like this in two different places: Interesting. The construct you quoted above without the tick is the way I normally do it when I've got more than a couple LAMs to bind. This method is taken directly from page 115 in the Kalinowski/Dominik SysRPL documentation. In that document, the reference info for the NULLLAM object simply shows it putting NULLLAM on the stack, and not attempting to execute anything. Furthermore, the documentation states that BIND will actually work with any ROM-pointer on the stack (ie. not just NULLLAM). Though I've never tried anything other than NULLLAM, I have no reason to doubt their assertion. I've got quite a few SysRPL code objects that use this method, and I've never had any problems binding LAMs that way. I've never seen any evidence that the tick is needed. Edit: I just took a look at chapter 13 of RPLMAN and noticed (at the bottom of page 60) the following construct: NULLLAM TWENTYFOUR NDUPN {}N BIND Although it uses {}N BIND instead of DOBIND, the preceding commands use the "unticked" NULLLAM as well. This would seem to confirm that no tick is needed. |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
Using NULLLAM - David Hayden - 02-19-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: Using NULLLAM - Raymond Del Tondo - 02-19-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: Using NULLLAM - DavidM - 02-20-2014 02:03 AM
RE: Using NULLLAM - Raymond Del Tondo - 02-20-2014, 08:40 AM
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)