RE: Lexical implementation work

2001-11-09 Thread Brent Dax
Dan Sugalski: # At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: # >There are a number of decisions to make about lexicals # >and the current PDD is pretty slim. So, IMHO, the place # >to start is with the PDD. Anybody have any more thoughts # >on the interface? Dan? Is this stone tablet stuff yet? # #

Re: colorForth, the language of traffic lights

2001-11-09 Thread Adam Turoff
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:41:27AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Some of you may remember (and some wish we could forget) a ramble I > posted about six months back about traffic lights and language design > and all the weird ways we get meaning out of such a small # of > symbols. One of the t

Re: Lexical implementation work

2001-11-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote: >There are a number of decisions to make about lexicals >and the current PDD is pretty slim. So, IMHO, the place >to start is with the PDD. Anybody have any more thoughts >on the interface? Dan? Is this stone tablet stuff yet? Nope, not stone tablet at

Re: Stupid Newbie Question

2001-11-09 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 06:48 AM 11/9/2001 +, Piers Cawley wrote: >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote: > >>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might > >>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for >

Re: the handiness of undef becoming NaN (when you want that)

2001-11-09 Thread Larry Wall
Piers Cawley writes: : Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on : > failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem : > was not-a-numeric in nature. : : Having more than one 'undef' value sound

Re: Thoughts on constancy/currying

2001-11-09 Thread Larry Wall
Piers Cawley writes: : If currying magic works in subroutine parameter strings then you can : just do : : sub assert_with_func (&^sub is constant, $^expected is constant, : $^got, $message) : { : &^sub($expected, $got) or die $message || $default_message

Parrot Smoke Nov 8 20:00:00 2001 UTC hpux 11.00

2001-11-09 Thread H . Merijn Brand
Automated smoke report for patch Nov 8 20:00:00 2001 UTC v0.02 on hpux using cc version B.11.11.02 O = OK F = Failure(s), extended report at the bottom ? = still running or test results not (yet) available Build failures during: - = unknown c = Configure, m = make, t =

Re: Stupid Newbie Question

2001-11-09 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote: >>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might >>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for >>operator overloading ... but, what are the smalltalkers g

Re: the handiness of undef becoming NaN (when you want that)

2001-11-09 Thread Piers Cawley
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Of course, that's not to say that the particular C that's returned on > failure-to-numerify mightn't have a property set that indicates the problem > was not-a-numeric in nature. Having more than one 'undef' value sounds like a recipe for internals mad

Re: Stupid Newbie Question

2001-11-09 Thread Damian Conway
Schwern explained: > Going away? No way, it's SPREADING! We might wind up with AUTOGLOB, too. > > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/324.pod Though it won't be called AUTOGLOB (globs *are* going away), and its semantics might be closer to those portrayed in: http://www.yetanother.org