I need - er, strike that - really, really could use some absolute C type
abstraction (in addition to our current relative system).
Any objections? Any objections to P_INTxx, P_UINTxx, and P_FLxx? Something
longer? (Don't want to upset the Language-Dev list again.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAI
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I'll overlay queens.pasm with a newly generated one.
Works beautifully, thanks.
--
Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you
only have to climb it once.
Simon --
> > I'd still like to check in an updated queens.pasm, although, I'd be
> > happy to wait while this problem is fixed since there aren't other
> > tests of the rotate op.
>
> I think Jako is confused about what 'rotate' rotates - we now have a
> control stack and a generic stack. 'save'
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:08:45PM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I'd still like to check in an updated queens.pasm, although, I'd be
> happy to wait while this problem is fixed since there aren't other
> tests of the rotate op.
I think Jako is confused about what 'rotate' rotates - we now have
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> > On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > > Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> > > order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Confi
I will not post these until status changes in order not to clutter the list.
Assume succes on HP-UX 11.00 until a report proves different.
Automated smoke report for patch Dec 6 20:00:01 2001 UTC
v0.02 on hpux - 11.00 using cc version B.11.11.02
O = OK
F = Failure(s), extended
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
>> I got some mail from a publisher off the back of my 'Not Just for
>> Damians' article asking if I'd like to write a perl 6 book for them.
>> Must reply really.
>
> "Sure, I'd be glad to write about perl 6. Do you also want t
At 10:32 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, Jeff G wrote:
>There appears to be an omission in the API... A way to assign to a
>particular index of the aggregate. We have ke_value that assigns to a
>{INSP} register, but no way to assign from an {INSP} register. I'll just
>create a ke_set_value unless I hear any s
Piers Cawley writes:
> I got some mail from a publisher off the back of my 'Not Just for
> Damians' article asking if I'd like to write a perl 6 book for them.
> Must reply really.
"Sure, I'd be glad to write about perl 6. Do you also want to know
the next Lotto numbers, who'll win the Grand Nat
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 09:18 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > The key idea is that the pumpkin holder runs 'make' ONCE to determine the
> > dependencies and record the proper order to run the units in a file.
> > End-users don't have to redetermine
On Friday 07 December 2001 09:23 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> {sigh}
{double sigh}
>
> Perl has TMTOWTDI. *I* get stuck with ATWIRTWISTOR. (At Least When I
> Reinvent The Wheel, It Still Turns Out Round.)
Dave Mitchell, I'm not.
s/AT/AL/;
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 07 December 2001 09:18 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Except, of course, for being one big honking file.
>
> That's a mere implementation detail :-). (Though one that's admittedly
> quite intimidating!) It isn't one big file until the very very end step.
> There's no reason it couldn't
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> > order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is
> > indeed built in just the way you suggest
On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is
> indeed built in just the way you suggest.
Except, of course, for being one big honking file.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote:
> > I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
> Dependency-ish rules, a la make. Maybe even tied into the actual build
> itself. I don't think getting them to run in the right
On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote:
> I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
Well, then one more is a relatively small burden to bear. ;-)
>
> Seriously, the only problem I can see with it is that the modules will
> have to be run in a specific order. If
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Cozens writes:
>> As mentioned in my other mail, I also edit perl.com for O'Reilly and
>> Associates, who probably do have commercial interest in the development
>> of Perl.
>
> The other ORA editors keep asking me "should we sign more Perl 5
Bryan C. Warnock:
# Is there any reason why we couldn't break up configure (when
# it comes into
# being) into chunks?
#
# The last 5.7.2 grab I have puts the current one at 17.5 Klines. It's
# weighty, a beast to maintain, and a beast to keep running
# through (should
# something break halfway.)
18 matches
Mail list logo
