At 06:14 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:39AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > So here is my take on a slightly simpler example:
> >
> > sub foo {
> > my $x = 13;
> > return sub { print "$x\n"; };
> > }
> >
> > $foo()
>
>Melvin, I think it w
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> > don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
>
> Something like this:
>
> grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C::Comments is Perl {
>
> rule ws { | }
>
> rule ugly_c_comment {
> /\* [ .*
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:43:39PM +, Jürgen Bömmels wrote:
> In the quest for removing warnings, I added an option --ccwarn to
> Configure.pl. With this option I could selectivly turn on and off
> warnings, and especially compile with -Werror, so I don't miss any
> warnings. The simple warnin
According to Damian Conway:
> {
> temp sub false() {0}
> # etc.
> }
I'm a bit concerned about what that would do to subroutines in other
modules called during the block's execution. Perhaps "my sub" instead?
PS: I wonder if the names would be &FALSE and &
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable? I
> don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
Something like this:
grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:55:21AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I agree -- we should separate new from init at some level. I think the
> "new" opcode should still both allocate and initialize, while the
> normal sequence for getting a PMC should become
>
> x = pmc_new(...);
> x->vtable->in
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 06:43:49PM +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:50:27AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > I don't see how you can cope with '%MY' unless you have a hash. You could
> > have a hash in addition to the array, I suppose.
>
> Sure, you need a hash. But th
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15953]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15953 >
A few more tests for the GC ops.
Simon
--- t/op/gc.t.old Fri Aug 2 17:03:13
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15952]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15952 >
mem_allocs_since_last_collect is the number of new blocks allocated,
not the total m
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15951]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15951 >
The title says it all really: the counter in the interpreter structure
that tracks
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15949]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15949 >
hash->num_buckets is unsigned, so we were getting a "comparison between
signed and u
# New Ticket Created by "Mr. Nobody"
# Please include the string: [perl #15948]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15948 >
I sent this patch before but it got the wordwraps
messed up, its enclosed as an attachm
At 4:28 PM +0200 8/2/02, Haegl wrote:
>On 2002/08/02 16:11:26 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
>>why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
>>defined). In effect, all bar the last reference
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:42 PM +0100 8/1/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >Am I allowed to write ancillary functions I want the JIT to call in
> >assembler? I presume that the JIT needs to go fast, and I suspect that there
> >are some bits that are easier to write in assembler (e
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:15:09AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> Could two parallel arrays work? One stores the lexicals (accessed by
> index) and the other stores the names of the lexicals. Then to access a
> lexical by name involves a sequential search through the (probably not
> large) array
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 10:43, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> Sure, you need a hash. But this can be a statically allocated hash,
> mapping variable names to indices.
Could two parallel arrays work? One stores the lexicals (accessed by
index) and the other stores the names of the lexicals. Then to acces
At 8:53 AM -0400 8/2/02, Trey Harris wrote:
>(With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
>but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
Yeek! Hopefully Larry'll forbear--while he may be able to pull that
one off, I'm afraid I'm not up to the task
At 06:14 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>Melvin, I think it would really help if you could explain us how you
>would compile this code. Also, you should describe precisely what
>"invoke" and "new_pad" (and maybe the other scratchpad-related
>opcodes) do as far as scratchpads are concer
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 08:50 AM 8/2/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> >Without performance numbers, this is hard to test, but it can potentially
> >turn a single "a = b + c", which is just "add P0, P1, P2" if a, b, and c
> >have been referenced, into a hideous five instructi
At 08:50 AM 8/2/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>Without performance numbers, this is hard to test, but it can potentially
>turn a single "a = b + c", which is just "add P0, P1, P2" if a, b, and c
>have been referenced, into a hideous five instructions:
>
> fetch_lex P0, 'a' # Because how w
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:50:27AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > > one entry for each level of scope w
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
: > (With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
: > but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
:
: Yay!
:
: $ cat infinite_compression.pl
All~
> >It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
> >why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
> >defined). In effect, all bar the last reference are in lvalue context -
> >only the rightmost is rvalue.
>
> The explanation is the part that wo
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> > context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> > context. Unfortunately, it doesn't
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> You've often asked this list, "will doing X in a module be possible?"
> Consider the things that Damian's already done with modules in Perl 5. I
> think Damian's involvement in Perl 6 if nothing else will insure that, no
> matter what
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > one entry for each level of scope within.
>
> I would use an array of arrays or a linked-list of arrays. Th
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 05:20:45PM +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > one entry for each level of scope within.
>
> I would use an array of arrays or a link
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> context. Unfortunately, it doesn't know what register it's in until after
> it captures
That's me. Will fix.
/s
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
> # Please include the string: [perl #15942]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15942 >
>
>
>
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> one entry for each level of scope within.
I would use an array of arrays or a linked-list of arrays. This is
hardly more difficult to implement (you just ne
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15943]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15943 >
Sorry, I missed this patch hunk from #15880 (but I still think
eventually the dyna
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15942]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15942 >
The subroutine.pmc and sub.pmc problems ([perl #15920]) are gone now
that Dan chec
That "Haegl" was actually me, Florian Haeglsperger (actually Häglsperger, but I don't
mind).
I accidently sent the mail using the wrong e-mail account. It is not my intention to
hide
myself behind a stupid nickname like "rEaLkEwLgUy2o0o" or something like that ;-)
On 2002/08/02 16:11:26 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
>why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
>defined). In effect, all bar the last reference are in lvalue context -
>only the rightmos
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
>
> > Aldo Calpini wrote:
> >
> >>I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
> >>does not show this behaviour:
> >>
> >
> > $\ = "\n";
> > $#a = 100;
> > print scalar(@a);
> > $x = $a[1][0];
> > Pe
John Porter wrote:
> Aldo Calpini wrote:
>
>>I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
>>does not show this behaviour:
>>
>
> $\ = "\n";
> $#a = 100;
> print scalar(@a);
> $x = $a[1][0];
This _writes_ to @a[1] by generating the entry:
P0, 100
P1 = new .PerlArray
P1 = 0
P0[100
In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable?
I don't think we've seen too much about how Larry plans to do
Perl-munging-Perl except
John Porter wrote:
> It all depends. :-)
>
> [...]
>
> Perl has to autoviv if it has to drill down.
good point. but since we don't have multidimensional
array access right now (at least AFAIK), this seems
to be a non-issue. I don't know if p6 will autovivify
the way p5 does (and I hope not). IMH
hello everybody,
here is my rough draft of the documentation for the
Parrot debugger. please review it (expecially the
boilerplate stuff like TITLE, HISTORY, etc. -- I don't
know if I have properly followed convention) (and if there
is one) and tell me if this should be sent as a patch.
I'm afr
> > - There's already a huge population of programmers out there who already
use
> > this notation. I frankly admit that I think of PHP as a great idea that
> > wasn't done quite right.
>
> I agree. Including that notation! ;-)
Touche. Darn it's difficult disagreeing with pithy people. :-)
OK
Aldo Calpini wrote:
> I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
> does not show this behaviour:
It all depends. :-)
$\ = "\n";
$#a = 100;
print scalar(@a);
$x = $a[1][0];
print scalar(@a);
101
10001
Perl has to autoviv if it has to drill down.
--
John Douglas Porter
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:28 PM +0200 8/1/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
>>fetching an element out of bound changes the
>>length of the array. but should this really happen?
>
> Because that's the way Perl's arrays work. Joys of
> autovivification.
I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
does
perl 5 already does that:
print "'$_' " foreach split /(=)/, "rank=?";
print "\n";
print "'$_' " foreach split /\s*(=)\s*/, "rank = ?";
print "\n";
# Output:
# 'rank' '=' '?'
# 'rank' '=' '?'
Greetings,
Christian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.web42.com/crenz/ - http://www.web42.com/
"
43 matches
Mail list logo
