Brent Dax wrote:
> Larry Wall:
> # There's also an issue of what (1..10) - 1 would or should
> # mean, if anything. Does it mean (1..9)? Does 1 + (1..10)
Actually, I would at first glance think, based on the parens, that:
(1..10)-1
means
((1-1)..(10-1))
means
(0..9)
Larry Wall:
# Of course, Real Mathematicians will want [1..10) and (1..10] instead.
#
# Double ick.
Reminds me of the number-line notation you learn about *before*
precalculus (or whatever the value of
$you.schooling.grade[12].class{math}.name is) confuses everything, with
open vs. closed circles
> : > I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
> : > endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
> :
> : Similarly: 1 >..< 10 == 2..9
> There's also an issue of what (1..10) - 1 would or should
> mean, if anything. Does it mean (1..9)? Does 1 + (1..10)
> mean (2..10)?
>
> A
Larry Wall wrote:
> :... - [maybe] range, exclusive of endpoint [Damian votes No]
>
> Could have ^..^ and ^..too, for all that.
OK, I just gotta say, that's _d*mn_ clever. "Exclusive of endpoint" --
It looks like what it is, and vice versa. I guess that's why you're our
fearless leader.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall [mailto:larry@;wall.org] wrote:
: > : unary (postfix) operators:
: > :... - [maybe] same as ..Inf [Damian votes Yes]
: >
: > I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
: > endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> >Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
>
> Absolutely. Eigenbunnies in supercozens. Sounds like we've found the
> mascot for Perl 6!
I really want to work a "pear pimples for hairy fishnuts" reference i
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Hell, we might as well throw in multiple dispatch.
Actually, I am really hoping we do.
> Any of you OO guys know of a case where
>
> $a = $a + $b; # @A [+]= @B; --> @A = @A [+] @B;
>
> and
>
> $a += $b; # @A [+=] @B;
>
> should be
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: (I think that at one point you mentioned that 'it' is implicit in
: Japanese--so does $_ qualify? :^) )
Only when you leave it out. Kind of like the cat.
Larry
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci@;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
:
: > for @x | @y -> $x is rw | $y {
: > $x += $y
: > }
:
: This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
: wondering why we were iterating with superpositio
On Aug-08, Peter Gibbs wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Peter Gibbs
> # Please include the string: [perl #16077]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=16077 >
>
>
> Attached patch implements Dan's new 'assign P
Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci@;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
> for @x | @y -> $x is rw | $y {
> $x += $y
> }
This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
wondering why we were iterating with superpositions (Bitops
never entered my mind). Did the C<;> ever o
Larry Wall [mailto:larry@;wall.org] wrote:
> : unary (postfix) operators:
> :... - [maybe] same as ..Inf [Damian votes Yes]
>
> I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
> endpoints by saying something like 1..!10.
Perhaps we could use the less-than symbol: 1 ..< 10
Larry Wall:
# So I'm actually being a bit culturally imperialistic in
# pushing for noun disjunctions. But I'm an American, and
# nobody expects better of me. :-)
I would argue that you should draw on useful concepts from any language,
not paying any attention to their existence in other langu
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: Hmmm...
:
: I've heard that this is a culturally driven thing: that whilst people can
: all disambiguate it, people from different cultures may do so differently
:
: In a "western" culture, exclusive-or is the assumed default unless context
: implies
At 1:20 AM + 10/30/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
I'd agree. Thinking UTF-8 is generally a bad idea.
If you think anything, think fixed-size code points, since that's
what you're ultimately g
On 30 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
: > (I'm thinking utf8 here).
:
: I'd strongly advise against that.
Actually, it works out rather well in practice, because the string
abstraction in Perl is that of a sequence of codepoints. But at
least in Perl 5,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: For this version of the operator list, (since I am unsure that _every_
: unary/binary op has a meaningful hyper, and some tentatively have
: _two_) I have placed all of them in EXPLICITLY. Please check that I
: didn't miss any, or put any in that ar
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:(is whitespace allowed inside the brackets, e.g. [ + ] vs. [+] ?)
I don't think so.
: unary (prefix) operators:
:. - method call on current topic
I think we have to have unary .= as well, if we're to do the
.=replace
trick on $_.
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
> (I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
--
Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black.
- Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
> the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
Conjunctions and disjunctions.
--
Wouldn't you love to fill out that report? "Company asset #423423
was lost while fighting the fo
For this version of the operator list, (since I am unsure that _every_
unary/binary op has a meaningful hyper, and some tentatively have
_two_) I have placed all of them in EXPLICITLY. Please check that I
didn't miss any, or put any in that are incorrect.
hyperoperators:
[op] - as prefix
Okay, For those of you playing the home game, Take 5, with Damian &
Larry's latest inputs. ^ means xor again, and a few things have been
removed. Comments?
Note that I will next post a list of hyperoperators _separately_.
If the design team could take a look, esp. at the remaining questions,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: > @x [+]= @y;
:
: I guess that's OK looking, tho either is fine with me.
My only syntactic quibble with [+] is that it's officially ambiguous
when it's a unary operator:
@a = [+]@b
could also be the start of
@a = [+1, +2, +3]
Or worse:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:19:59 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> So I would like to see able to tag arbitrary information onto just about
> everything, including files, packages, classes, subroutines, blocks, control
> structures, statements, lines, expressions, variables and whatever else I've
> forgott
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slip
Interesting point, especially if operator:+= can be overloaded.
@a [+=] @b;
implies iteratively invoking operator:+=, whereas
@a [+]= @b;
implies assigning the result of iteratively invoking operator:+
It only matters when they're different. :-|
And, of course, if they ARE different then t
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:32 +
> From: Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Damian Conway writes:
> > My personal favorite solution is to use s
OK, perl6-language is getting scary again ;-) So here's something else
to think about. Code coverage.
We don't have to worry about how to do it here. That's a problem for
internals, and they seem to be solving it quite well without my
interference at the moment, even if they are not aware of th
On 30/10/02 08:36 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Brian Ingerson wrote:
>
> > Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
> > YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
> >
> > ---
> > letters: !super [0, 1, 2]
> > digits: !super
>
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:50 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
PS: Is anyone collecting these examples. It would make writing that
perl.com
article much easier for me ;-)
But of course! Piers is summarizing this entire thread -- right,
Piers? :-)
Aaron Crane wrote:
@x [+]= @y;
I g
Aaron Crane wrote:
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've merely
missed the answer). We've got two productive operation-formation rules: one
saying "add a final = to operate-and-assign", and the other saying "wrap in
[] to vectorise". But no-one's said which order they
Buddha Buck wrote:
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
As I mentioned in a recent post, would expect them to be all-pervasive
and fully propagating.
I mean, will the following work?
I would certainly hope so! (modulo the syntax snafu)
In fact, i
Damian Conway writes:
> My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
> array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the operator
> so nicely):
>
> $count = @a + @b;
> @sums = @a [+] @b;
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Oh! I just remembered the ultimate word for a container. It's "cozy", of
course!
Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
The plural of which is, presumable, "supercozens".
Now *I'm* really scared!
;-)
Damian
On 29/10/02 13:26 -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> On 29/10/02 16:05 -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > I was wondering...
> >
> > How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
>
> Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
> YAML serializations of superposi
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters: !super [0, 1, 2]
digits: !super
- 0
- 1
- 2
...
Not quite. You also need to discri
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
>
> Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
> eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is th
Austin Hastings wrote:
I confess, I don't get it.
Yes, you did. :-)
To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay.
Okay then. That's all.
But does it
On 29/10/02 16:05 -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> I was wondering...
>
> How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters: !su
Larry wrote:
All other things being equal, I think people will find modal operators
more confusing than if we just make separate operators.
Agreed.
That being said, I'm still wondering whether we can finesse it.
We can get close. But that might actually be counterproductive.
> Damian's d
Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> Any ideas on what
>
> { $^a op $^b }
>
> would become?
>
> MikeL
maybe
{ $_a op $_b }
{ _ op _ }
and we have simple ( ? ) rules to distinguish it from "space-eater" _
* _ surrounded by spaces is placeholder if term is ex
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we really have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack?
> >
> > the specs are available *somewhere*, and we should see
> > about digging them up and getting a final answer one way
I confess, I don't get it. To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay. But does it somehow skip all entries
before/after the delimiter?
Also, in a related ve
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
I mean, will the following work?
$letters = any('a'..'z');
$digits = any('0'..'9');
$ndaTable = {
start => { $letters => 'OneLetter',
$digits => 'OneDigit' }
OneLetter => { $letters
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 05:18:53AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
>
> The gcc interface project has been offically restarted.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00806.html
Congratulations. I think it's an important project.
Tim.
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> > On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> > >
> > > So I would look
On 10/29/02 3:13 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> I suspect it will be quite unusual to see nested superpositions
> in code. Most folks are going to be using them for simple but
> very common checks like:
>
> [...]
>
> my $seen = $start | $finish;
> for <> -> $next {
> print $next unless $next == $seen;
David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
"Superposition".
Damian
Larry...
> would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
any(
"multivalue",
"multival",
"opval"=> "andval"|"orval"|"xorval"|"nandval",
"opval"=> "andval"|"orval"|"exval"|"nonval",
"opval"=> "allval"|"anyval"|"oneval"|"noneval",
"set" => "andset"|"orset"
Brian Ingerson writes:
> On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> >
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
>
> How about "christm
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
> why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
> from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
> op varia
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:51:14AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
> bit of each character.
Is that the complement of the codepoint or the individual bytes?
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
--
Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
>>If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that ordinary programmers can relate to, it
would bother me less when people make claims about the usefulness of
superpositions.
I'll take one of those for perl.com!
Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intent
Scott Duff wrote:
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C<$val.eigenstates>
or maybe just C<$val.states>. The method would work on non-superimposed
values as well, in which cases it would just return a list containing
the val
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> Well, I like "set operators," too, but what's the grammatical term for
> the above "logically entangled list of nouns"?
I'd call them "ents" if not for Austin Hastings' more sensible
"flexops" (unless someone wants to take a stab a
damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant makes much more sense.
@sum = @a [+] @b ;
that reads as ve
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
[i.e. this change doesn't make any difference]
Doh! You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking a long
while back that it would be confusing to have
{ $^a op $^b }
if ^ went back to meaning xor. But there's the s
Simon Cozens wrote:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although "..." comes pretty close, I suppose.
Great minds think alike.
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Beats the heck out of "thingy". I had to read that chapter three times
before I realized that Randal hadn't just forgotten the real word.
I still feel uncomfortable saying
Uri Guttman wrote:
what is a string complement? bitwise? i take it the numeric is one's
complement.
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Integer complement treats the value as a int then bitwise complements every
bit.
DC>
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is they may or
may not be keeping your feet warm--you can
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:36:20 -0800
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
would become?
It would be unchanged. Placeholders have nothing to do with hyperoperators.
And never have had.
Damian
Can we have a secret handshake, too? Will we be blamed for the secret
features of the new US dollar bill?
"You know that eye-in-the-pyramid looking thingy? Well, notice what
character on the COMPUTER KEYBOARD that looks like? It's not by
coincidence that many of the programmers at the Treasury De
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Oh boy, I just *hate* the idea of C for xor.
DC> Hate it, hate it, hate it! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
tell us how you _really_ feel! :-)
DC> My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
DC> array and indexing
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the
operator
so nicely):
$count = @a + @b;
@sums = @a [+] @b;
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b
I think this may be in response to an earlier message of yours looking
for a replacement for "superposition." But I recall getting a Dilbert
calendar for Xmas some years back with a cover featuring the PHB saying
"I'm not indecisive - I'm flexible!"
Thus, flexops. And flexpressions (flexprs, for
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
What kindergartener can't understand a
logically entangled list of nouns?
I want a tricycle or a video game or a teddy bear for Christmas.
I want a tricycle and a video game and a teddy bear for Christmas.
That's no differe
Oh boy, I just *hate* the idea of C for xor.
Hate it, hate it, hate it! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
But I do like Michael's idea of using C<@> as the hyperoperator marker
(the array connotation works well, I think). The only problem is that
we end up with too many C<@>'s in most expressions:
$count = @a +
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> >
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "super
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:22:36AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.,
> into the general vocabulary of the language. It attempts to make it
> sound harder than it is, I think -- there are plenty of uses for these
> operators o
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> : On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
>
> So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
How about "christmasgift" or "gift"?
You don't know what it
At 10:02 AM -0800 10/29/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry,
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h<+> or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling "Warnock's" on
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:simon@;ermine.ox.ac.uk]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> > So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for
> > "superposition".
>
> Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with
> calling them "set operators".
Great minds think alike. Or in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for "superposition".
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with calling them
"set operators".
--
For true believers, LORD would be K\textsc{nuth} in TeX, and
L\textsc{amport} in LaTeX. Athei
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
: > Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
: > basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
:
: Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >
> > Can we really have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack?
>
> the specs are available *somewhere*, and we should see
> about digging them up and getting a final answer one way
> or another.
A gold mine of cpu specs:
http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry, I believe in the transactional model of QM, a
On Monday 28 October 2002 13:02, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:08 PM -0800 10/27/02, chromatic wrote:
> >Is there an underlying function used to add arbitrary (Unicode text)
> > metadata to the bytecode?
> Arbitrary metadata? Nope, no plans for that. While I can see it as a
> useful thing (though i
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > >>
: > >> one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
: > >>
: > >> Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
: > >> appealing than
: > >>
: > >> ($a & $b & $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
At 11:22 AM -0600 10/29/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
brian wheeler:
# Is this really necessary? Seems like a chicken-and-egg
# thing: to know which chuck the directory is in, you need to
# read the directory.
# However, since you've defined that the first chunk (0) is
# always the directory, there's really no need to have it in
# the directory
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
>> Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
>> true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
>> wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and va
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
> basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are "basic" in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of way, but
they are hardly basic in the everyone-learns-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
> true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
> wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
> superpositions in contexts that
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Superpositions will turn out to be unimaginably handy, possibly used
> in 10% or 15% of the code, so they get shorter names.
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense.
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 11:48, Brent Dax wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # > Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that
> # we have to
> # > worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
> # > segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
> #
At 11:46 AM +0100 10/29/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that we have to
worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, wit
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Here's my proposal for stage one: This patch is intended to define
> explicitly what the different compiler and linker commands and flags
> are, what they are supposed to mean, and how they are to be used.
>
> Does this set of variables look sufficien
Here's my proposal for stage one: This patch is intended to define
explicitly what the different compiler and linker commands and flags
are, what they are supposed to mean, and how they are to be used.
Does this set of variables look sufficient for everyone, and are the
definitions clear? If so,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# > Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that
# we have to
# > worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
# > segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
# > everything after position X (for some value of X) left u
At 4:57 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
... Can we really
have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack? I don't think so. Or am I
still missing something?
There was some indication back when this was first implemented th
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
... Can we really
have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack? I don't think so. Or am I still
missing something?
There was some indication back when this was first implemented that the
i386, at least when running windows, could
Jason Gloudon wrote:
ptrdiff_t is not a pointer type, so cur_var_ptr + PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT skips
exactly PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT bytes.
I did modify your patch slightly
- reversed directions (top->down is probably more common)
- increment by sizeof(void*)
This boost life.pasm gens from 270 ->
At 8:40 AM -0800 10/28/02, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 27 October 2002 23:27, Brent Dax wrote:
Appearances are deceiving--the first adds some (unparsed?) source code,
the second adds information on file and line numbers, probably based on
offset into the bytecode.
Similar in terms of impleme
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr +
PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT)
When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are
skipped during
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr +
PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT)
When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are skipped
during stack scanning by incrementing cur_var_ptr by siz
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
