Opcode complaints

2001-10-27 Thread Brent Dax
Okay, now that I've had some time working with Parrot assembler, I've developed a list of complaints. ;^) 1. No if(s|sc, i|ic) We're treating strings as second-class citizens here. Why shouldn't you be able to do an 'if' on a string? You could interpret it as the string's length, or the string

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, John Siracusa wrote: > On 10/27/01 7:08 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > I think we're due out in reasonably good alpha/beta shape for the summer. > > Heh, the phrase "suitably vague" springs to mind... :) Ah, and you thought it was my *technical* skills that got me this job! >

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread John Siracusa
On 10/27/01 10:34 PM, John Siracusa wrote: > On 10/27/01 7:08 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: >> I think we're due out in reasonably good alpha/beta shape for the summer. > > Heh, the phrase "suitable vague" springs to mind... :) s/e v/y v/; # oops :) -John

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread John Siracusa
On 10/27/01 7:08 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: > I think we're due out in reasonably good alpha/beta shape for the summer. Heh, the phrase "suitable vague" springs to mind... :) (which year is that again? ;) -John

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 06:09 PM 10/27/2001 -0400, John Siracusa wrote: >On 10/27/01 4:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > At 06:27 AM 10/27/2001 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: > >> I think Robert and I are planning to get mod_parrot to work as soon as > >> parrot has some kin

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread John Siracusa
On 10/27/01 4:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 06:27 AM 10/27/2001 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: >> I think Robert and I are planning to get mod_parrot to work as soon as >> parrot has some kind of I/O. :-) > > Darned soon now. > > So I know for the f

Re: String rationale

2001-10-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:23 PM 10/27/2001 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Other than that it looked quite good and I'll probably start looking at > > bending the existing code into the new model over the weekend. > >Attached is my first

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 06:27 AM 10/27/2001 -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: > >[...] > > If the 0.02/0.03/0.04 versions of parrot leak, it's not that big a deal > > since it's not like we've got a long-running persistent interpreter like > > mod_parrot or anything... ;-) > >I

Re: Perl 6 - Cheerleaders?

2001-10-27 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:43:19PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 08:09:57AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > > * If $.foo is "like" the Perl5 $self->{foo}, how do I do > the Perl5 $self->foo? .foo duh. I'm, losing my mind. I was seeing: "$self->{foo}"

Re: String rationale

2001-10-27 Thread Tom Hughes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Attached is my first pass at this - it's not fully ready yet but > is something for people to cast an eye over before I spend lots of > time going down the wrong path ;-) Before anybody else spots, let me just add w

Re: String rationale

2001-10-27 Thread Tom Hughes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Other than that it looked quite good and I'll probably start looking at > bending the existing code into the new model over the weekend. Attached is my first pass at this - it's not fully ready yet but is something

Re: Schedule of things to come

2001-10-27 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: [...] > If the 0.02/0.03/0.04 versions of parrot leak, it's not that big a deal > since it's not like we've got a long-running persistent interpreter like > mod_parrot or anything... ;-) I think Robert and I are planning to get mod_parrot to work as soo

Re: Languages in the core source tree?

2001-10-27 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) writes: [...] > However, the author(s) of each individual interpreter should be > responsible for their own language. Basically, a mini-pumpinking. oh, just to make it clear: Our CVS setup supports just giving someone access to certain directories within a

Re: Languages in the core source tree?

2001-10-27 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: > At 07:15 AM 10/22/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote: > > > 1) Do we put them all in the parrot CVS tree > > > >I think it would be good for the languages to be in tree, but I would like > >to have it under a different mechanism for cvs checkout. In other words, t

Re: Revamping the build system

2001-10-27 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 09:05:33AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > > While imperfect and Unix-centric, we can (and should!) learn a lot > > from auto{conf,make} and metaconfig. > > *nod*. I just had a look around, and most of the other languages are > us

Re: Revamping the build system

2001-10-27 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paolo Molaro) writes: [...] > I'm going to bite and say the words (and get the flames). > > autoconf automake libtool FWIW: I have the impression that they're not very happy with those in the apache httpd project. (But I am blissfully ignorant about the details). - a

Re: Chr & Ord, v0.4

2001-10-27 Thread Piers Cawley
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 09:47:01AM -0400, James Mastros wrote: >> This is version 0.4 of my chr and ord patch for parrot. Included >> is a patch, a test file, and an example. > > That one looks good. You know, if it had documentation, I'd commit > it.