Dan Sugalski wrote:
... These are the things going in, and in
the order they're going in:
Could you comment on current unresolved issues:
- string_set, reusing string headers
- the inconsistencies in the PASM examples, especially the last one in
this thread:
"[CVS ci] string_set is back for a
Angel Faus wrote:
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
wou
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 05:08 AM, Angel Faus wrote:
# >> I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
# > I agree with you. XML is very unpleasant to write.
#
# I certainly agree with that, but I was thinking of something
# very basic
# -- just
Luke Palmer wrote:
I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind of
"extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content, little
structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be unproductive,
and although the structure is useful, much of it is redundant and ca
--
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:02:12
Brent Dax wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison:
># >I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
># >ambiguity, it should autovivify.
>#
># Actually, this behavior has already (mostly) been decided over in P6
># language. It was decided (and I agre
> > method f ($self : $a) { ... }
> > sub f ($a) is given ($line) { ... }
> >
> > what do you call $self
>
> The "invocant".
>
> > and $line?
>
> A lexical variable that happens to be
> bound to the caller's topic.
The "invokit" perhaps?
> placeholders create subroutines, not method
I sat around trying to think of a witty, pithy way to make this
announcement more surreal or frightening than it really is and failed. So
I guess I'll let it stand on it's own.
I've just completed a complete re-write of BASIC for Parrot. This time
I've used QuickBASIC as a model which means
appened to be zeroed so this was never caught. HTH,
I'd like to get more involved with Parrot.
Dave
Isa. 40:31
-- attachment 1 --
url: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/attach/41470/33354/96560c/parrot-patch-2002
diff -u io/old_io.c io/io.c
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The fact that we don't need C is not a good argument for
not using it. Perl tests should assume that Parrot works!
Right, so whats wrong with using one of parrot's most basic ops? Thats
all perl6 print
is; a small wrapper around
"Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
> should do them using perl's standard testing format (i.e. Test::More,
> Test::Harness, etc.)
I would argue that we sho
"Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3DD0674C.1080708@;osu.edu...
> A module? For something as basic as print?
> I hope not, that would certainly be a pain.
My understanding is that C will be a method on C (or
whatever), which has a default invocant of $stdout. This module m
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 05:43:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> One thing the "golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into
>> and out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
>> perl6/parrot to do just about the mi
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
verification
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Allison, if you could arrange an official liaison on p6i that could
> direct (in a definitive, buck-stops-here way) authors' efforts w/
> regard to how perl6-specific tests should be written, we would be
> grateful. We seem to have a decent number of people here will
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
documentation, not code. An obvious question is how to extend it to be a
more thorough test, whilst not spoiling the documentation. We'd want to
intersperse text with the test-code; and probably mark a few bits as
"hidden", from a normal documentation view (levels of hiding m
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > One thing the
"golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into and
> out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
> perl6/parrot to do just about the minimum required of it, then passes
> verification off to outside t
> Hm. I'm not sure how well it goes with the Perl philosophy ("the perl
> language is what the perl interpreter accepts"), but we could embed the
> _real_ test cases in whatever formal spec happens. This would be the
> excruciatingly boring document only read by people trying to implement
> perl
Michael Lazzaro:
# OK, let's start on the first section (calling them
# "Sections", not "Chapters"). As our first experiment, we
# will assume a treelike style (section 1 --> 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1,
# etc.); look at http://www.mysql.com/documentation/ for an
# example of a good, detailed documentatio
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Dave Whipp wrote:
> This is fine as a test, but not as documentation. Furthermore, it is
> depending on the "print" statement for its comparison (not necessarily bad;
> but I find that "golden-output" style tests tend to become difficult to
> maintain -- specific assertions ten
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is
what we've got, though they're intended to
> exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language" (which looks like
> it's changing quite a bit from what's implemented).
OK, lets take a specific test. builtins/array.t conta
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:50:34PM -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
> POD parsers also go to a fair amount of trouble to infer syntax. For
> example, a function name like this() will be rendered differently by
> many POD processors. This is a good thing, in that you don't have to
> litter your documenta
> Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic
> blocks and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so
> ...).
I would think so, because if, for example, the JIT wants to do a full
register allocation to map parrot registers to machine registers, it
would certainly nee
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer to some existing Perl
> 6 tests that they can model off of. Do any exist yet?
languages/perl6/t/*/*.t is what we've got, though they're intended to
exercise the prototype compiler, not the "real language"
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
k ...
> that case, why bother verifying?
Hmm wouldn't the JIT benifit from a pre knowledge of basic blocks
and types or some information ? ... (I seem to think so ...).
> at runtime anyway. With a full scan o
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:47:01PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with SDF?
I played with it for some in-house documentation a couple years ago.
I'm afraid I wasn't very impressed with it; I found it very difficult
to customize the output to what I wanted, and the synt
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:31 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
In my opinion, this outline puts too much weight on the first section.
I would prefer it to be made of just the basic concepts and have
forward references to the aprop
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Otherwise, they're just normal tests and are handled by things like
Test::Tutorial, Test::More and Test.pm. Details on the test output
protocol
can be found in Test::Harness.
I think it'd be useful for folks to get a pointer
In order for TODO tests to work Test::Harness must be upgraded (only 5.8.0
ships with a T::H able to parse TODO tests). An upgraded version of
Test::Harness can simply be distributed with Parrot the same way Test::More
is.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:31:50PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I can't
ralph wrote:
> So what is driving you
guys to deliberately avoid a brief def
syntax?
Can't speak for Larry. But what's driving me is the desire
to balance conciseness with comprehensibility, and to keep the
overall cognitive load manageable.
If you're proposing that there be some special
exe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
[...]
> I have subscribed to both perl6-all and perl6-documentation, and
> these messages don't seem to get into perl6-all at all.
It would have been better if you had told [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just browsed through the archive for this list and noticed yo
Monday 11 November 2002 20:40, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> The only consist support for something different than POD... was
> for something that is in fact very similar to, and in fact based
> upon POD: SDF.
>
> http://www.ifi.uio.no/in228/scripting/doc/sdf/index.html
>
>
> And the major arguments for
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Can anyone write up a detailed document describing how one would go about
> writing Perl6 test cases and submitting them to Parrot? The parrot
> documentation on testing, is understandably focused on testing parrot...
> not the languages running on parrot.
>
> I can't find
I wrote up some basic string tests, just to get a feel. You can find
them at:
http://jryan.perlmonk.org/images/stringtest.tar.gz
Things of note:
-I wasn't sure how the tests should be written, so I wrote them in a generic
'code in .t, expected output in .o' form. This should be pretty easy to
At 9:25 PM +0530 11/11/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
Sure. Or at least not forbidden.
We've had
If it's not obvious, I hereby donate the perl6-related text currently
at:
http://cog.cognitivity.com/perl6/val.html
http://cog.cognitivity.com/perl6/var.html
to the perl6-documentation effort. Authors are free to
copy/paste/modify/rewrite the text, as desired, when writing docs for
th
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:31 PM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Can anyone write up a detailed document describing how one would go
about
writing Perl6 test cases and submitting them to Parrot? The parrot
documentation on testing, is understandably focused on testing
parrot... not
the langua
Erik Steven Harrison:
# >I think that, if Perl can determine the type with virtually no
# >ambiguity, it should autovivify.
#
# Actually, this behavior has already (mostly) been decided over in P6
# language. It was decided (and I agree) that the Perl 5 behavior of
Can you give me a link or a
From: David Wheeler [mailto:david@;wheeler.net]
> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:36 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > # simple substitution
> > my $var = "perl5";
> > $var =~ s/\d/6/;
> >
> > While this is completely valid perl6, and something that
> > might want to be included in the regex test
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
In my opinion, this outline puts too much weight on the first section.
I would prefer it to be made of just the basic concepts and have
forward references to the apropiate sections.
Agreed. I was just listing all the *possible* cruf
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Adam Turoff wrote:
Two arguments that I don't see listed (and may not have been raised in
the most recent perl6-language version of the debate) are:
So long as someone can come up with a formal POD template that
represents all the fields we need, I'm
In my opinion, this outline puts too much weight on the first section.
I would prefer it to be made of just the basic concepts and have
forward references to the apropiate sections.
For example: I wouldn't put the list of methods supported by each of
the types in Section 1. Instead of this, I
> You're confusing brevity of declaration
> with brevity of use.
One needs sufficient brevity of both call
and declaration syntax if the mechanism's
brevity is to be of use in short scripts.
> Making (limited) circumvention of [$_'s
> lexicality] depend on a verbose and
> explicit syntax will he
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:34:00AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> ... I was thinking of something very basic -- just enough to get
> it into a database, for example. You'd just copy a standard
> template and fill in the fields. Like perhaps:
>
>
> 1.1.2.1
> Numeric Context
>
> Numeric Con
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:40:59PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> The general Pro's and Con's of POD seem to be:
>
> PRO
> ===
> simple, concise, limited, extensible, forgiving
> easy to convert to XXX, easy to write, easy to read, easy to ignore
> separates block/inline markup, no special editor
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 07:36 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
# simple substitution
my $var = "perl5";
$var =~ s/\d/6/;
While this is completely valid perl6, and something that might want to
be included in the regex test suite, it won't pass neither the P6C
parser
tests, nor the P6C compile
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> All you need to do is change the offset a bit to point to an opcode
> and you'll be fine.
Hmm... you mean to say that a jump to a non-instruction is valid ? ..
We've had the verifiability question hashed out ... but jump target
validation is one
From: Angel Faus [mailto:afaus@;corp.vlex.com]
> > I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
> > of "extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content,
> > little structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be
> > unproductive, and although the structure
Michael Lazzaro writes:
> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 11:44 AM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > TASK 1a:
> >
> > Produce a _complete_ outline of all necessary documentation for Section
> > 1, including the topics introduced and the order in which those topics
> > are represented.
>
> As a
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 11:44 AM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
TASK 1a:
Produce a _complete_ outline of all necessary documentation for Section
1, including the topics introduced and the order in which those topics
are represented.
As an example, here is a very crude partial outline that I
On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Revision on reading Mike's message: If the constant stream of revisions
happens on cognitivity, how about submitting approved docs to the
"perl6" repository?
I would tend to agree, using the CVS repository to do nickle-and-dime
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 05:08 AM, Angel Faus wrote:
I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
I agree with you. XML is very unpleasant to write.
I certainly agree with that, but I was thinking of something very basic
-- just enough to get it into a database,
On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:19 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
One of the reasons I like C is because it does specify
exactly the way the subroutine is to behave (i.e. be called the first
time,
and not called every subsequent time the same arguments are supplied).
So
I can do nasty^H^H^H^H^Hh
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Well, my point was that language tests will be different than the
> compiler/parser tests for awhile. For instance, take a simple string
> substitution test:
>
> # simple substitution
> my $var = "perl5";
> $var =~ s/\d/6/;
>
> While this is completely valid perl6, and so
At 10:02 AM -0500 11/11/02, Michael Collins wrote:
Hi,
This may be an ignorant statement since I just joined this list, but I noticed
that the parrot "branch" assembly instruction doesn't work and
sometimes causes
a core dump on Linux 2.4.
Oh, it works, you just need to understand it properly.
At 1:19 PM +0530 11/11/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Should be reasonably straightforward. Hopefully quick, too, as I'm
pressed for time here.
--
Hmm... Object frameworks ? ... (or is that shelved for the present ?)
Not shelved, no. (And arguably the in
Hi,
This may be an ignorant statement since I just joined this list, but I noticed
that the parrot "branch" assembly instruction doesn't work and sometimes causes
a core dump on Linux 2.4.
--
example 1:
setI0, 16
branch 3
print "a"
print "b"
print "c"
print "d"
print "\n"
Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
Grabbing the last few snapshots from dev.perl.org, I can't find one that'll
build under Win32. During Configure.PL I get these errors:
Determining stack growth direction...'.\test.exe' is not recognized as an
internal or e
Jerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jerome Quelin
# Please include the string: [perl #18320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18320 >
And yet another bug discovered thanks to my Befunge int
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> Grabbing the last few snapshots from dev.perl.org, I can't find one that'll
> build under Win32. During Configure.PL I get these errors:
>
> Determining stack growth direction...'.\test.exe' is not recognized as an
> internal or extern
> al comma
# New Ticket Created by Jerome Quelin
# Please include the string: [perl #18320]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18320 >
And yet another bug discovered thanks to my Befunge interpreter (would you
please stop
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #18319]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18319 >
I've gotten no negative feedback (no positive either, but that's normal)
so I propose
>
> I very much dislike XML for writing. It'd be nice to use some kind
> of "extended POD" or something. Something that's mostly content,
> little structure. Formats with a lot of structure tend to be
> unproductive, and although the structure is useful, much of it is
> redundant and can be bypa
Arcadi wrote:
this is not a description or definition of something. It is just set
of questions and confusions that I have when I encounter words like
"variable" , "name" , "alias", "assign" in perl . In the form of
explanation. But actually these are questions .
These are answers. In the form
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Should be reasonably straightforward. Hopefully quick, too, as I'm
> pressed for time here.
> --
Hmm... Object frameworks ? ... (or is that shelved for the present ?)
Gopal
--
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success
Paul Johnson wrote:
Part of the reason I would prefer something like "pure" over something
like "cached" is because it describes the function rather than telling
the compiler how to deal with it. That feels better to me. It's
working at a higher level. Maybe the end result is the same, or mayb
Nicholas Clark wrote:
We're looking for a word that tersely expresses
> has_no_side_effects_and_can_safely_have_its_results_cached_based_on_parameter_types_
> and_values_and_calling_context ?
And to people in the perl5 know, Memoize is the module that implements this,
hence why people who know
Luke Palmer wrote:
Could you just look through the lexical scope of the object?
for $this.MY.kv -> $k, $v {
print "$k: $v\n"
}
Or would you look through the class's lexical scope and apply it to
the object?
for keys $this.class.MY {
print "$_: $this.MY{$_}\n"
}
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance
specific, if you do Evil Things with multiple copies of a single base
class in different legs of the inheritance tree and override the
default behaviour of the engine) and not queryable at runtime without
r
ralph wrote:
If the syntax for passing "it" to a sub
remains as verbose as it currently is,
you are probably right that "it" won't
be used to achieve brevity!
You're confusing brevity of declaration with brevity of use.
Declarations should always be relatively verbose.
Why do you think your
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
> in order for the docs to be databased & later sliced in a variety of
> ways (begi
70 matches
Mail list logo
