At 11:37 PM 5/12/2002 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>With the latest checkin, the new assembler fully functions and can call
>keyed operations. No operations yet, but the infrastructure is there,
>and I'll see about adding some basic operations tonight.
Cheer, the barge is moving once again!
I'll work with
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 11:37 PM -0400 5/12/02, Jeff wrote:
> >With the latest checkin, the new assembler fully functions and can call
> >keyed operations. No operations yet, but the infrastructure is there,
> >and I'll see about adding some basic operations tonight.
>
> Yay! Cool, I'll start
At 11:37 PM -0400 5/12/02, Jeff wrote:
>With the latest checkin, the new assembler fully functions and can call
>keyed operations. No operations yet, but the infrastructure is there,
>and I'll see about adding some basic operations tonight.
Yay! Cool, I'll start in on the symbol tables then.
FWI
With the latest checkin, the new assembler fully functions and can call
keyed operations. No operations yet, but the infrastructure is there,
and I'll see about adding some basic operations tonight.
The test program I used in this case (don't mind the fprintf()s in
core.ops) was:
new P0,0
set P0
In a message dated Sun, 12 May 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It it too much to ask, of the creator of a tied array, to implement
> > their code in such a way that *reading* an element of that array
> > does not have significant side-effects?
>
> Actua
From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It it too much to ask, of the creator of a tied array, to implement
> their code in such a way that *reading* an element of that array
> does not have significant side-effects?
Actually, I think that *is* a significant imposition. The whole point of
tied
At 4:26 PM +0300 5/11/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I thought this would be interesting.
>http://oss.software.ibm.com/pthreads/
>http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/pthreads
>
>Short desc :
> IBM is creating a new generation of Posix Threads, which will be
>supported by the Linux
On Sunday, May 12, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>> While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
>> Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
>> scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
>> accessed by a cert
> While thinking Eiffel-ish thoughts the other day, I began to wonder if
> Perl6's classes could go beyond the simple private/public/protected
> scheme by optionally allowing for a property or method to only be
> accessed by a certain set of classes.
Many times when I've used OO languages I've wi
# New Ticket Created by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Please include the string: [netlabs #565]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://bugs6.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=565 >
ÃֽŠ¹ÂÁ÷ºñµð¿À,¿±±â,Ç÷¡½¬,ÃֽŠ°¡¿ä/ÆË ¼ºÀÎ µ¿¿µ»ó °¨»ó »çÀÌÆ®
NEW MU
10 matches
Mail list logo
