Hmm. Thanks. It's not quite what I was trying to do. I am trying to set up the function so that I don't have to explicitly read any variables in order to access the values. If I had a method to set the one of the fields in the type, that'd be no different than just reading the field when the function is called. I'm trying to get around that. I don't like using variables where I don't have to. Variables are evidence that things are uncertain and if you can be more certain about what is happening things are more efficient.
It'd be useful to me to be able to define the function and have embedded in that function a constant, so that the constant might end up as immediate data for an instruction rather than have to be read in additionally from memory.
It'd be useful to me to be able to define the function and have embedded in that function a constant, so that the constant might end up as immediate data for an instruction rather than have to be read in additionally from memory.