Warning: I just watched The Wizard Of Oz
for the first time tonight.
> $x is yours
>
> tells that $x is aliased to variable in
> some "secret scope symbol table" that
>( the table ) is shared between caller
> and callee
The "secret" place is MyYourca, a Subterranean
island. People think it's an
At 10:55 AM +1000 11/25/02, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Floating point fills me with fear.
If it makes you feel better, C# does not require overflow
detection on floating-point operations. FP overflow results
in +/-INF, underflow results in zero, and undefined is NAN.
Only
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Floating point fills me with fear.
If it makes you feel better, C# does not require overflow
detection on floating-point operations. FP overflow results
in +/-INF, underflow results in zero, and undefined is NAN.
Only integer overflow detection is required, and then only
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:20 AM -0500 11/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
> >> When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
> >It's (at least partly) a packfile alignment thing. I think if you look in
> >t
Me writes:
>
> 4. Autoargs are conceptually simpler than
> shared variables, for both newbies and
> experts. But clearly this is subjective. :>
>
thats exactly the point where I tryed to improve. Think of me as a
newbe ( which I am ) -- If I understand your proposal , I can explain it to
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:33:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > .NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
> > an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
> > an exception (if you've used the "ch
> I like more "shared" instead of "yours"
But that's because that's the way you are
thinking about the problem/solution.
I'm just talking about a very local trick
of having autoargs instead of explicitly
passing args in parens. The fact that this
ends up creating an elegant alternative to
dangero
> you propose a mechanism of passing [vars]
> between desired subroutins by default
> through all the dynamical chain of sub
> calls "connecting them.
There's more, or rather, less to it than that.
The same mechanism also includes a clean way
to pass "it", something that needs to be done.
And a
At 10:33 PM +0100 11/24/02, Florian Weimer wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
.NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
an exception (if you've used the "check overflow" versions of
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> .NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
> an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
> an exception (if you've used the "check overflow" versions of the ops)
Actually, I thought about implementing
At 8:07 PM +0100 11/24/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Sorry for the ignorant question: This
At 9:34 AM + 11/23/02, Jerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
Well, the topic says it pretty much: befunge now supports the push and
pop instructions builtin in PerlArray PMC, and I can get rid of my own
crafted version of push and pop in Parrot Assembly.
Fear, cause now I'll be able to find even more
Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Sorry for the ignorant question: This does mean what and implying that
and whatsoever?
At 1:46 PM +0100 11/24/02, Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
That'll be done with the standard exception handling mechanism
At 9:20 AM -0500 11/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
around, just to build a perl with NV==double? I've looked around, can't
find anything about it except in KNOWN_ISSUES (only match
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, 6:16:41 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
>> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 08:28, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>>> - floating point becomes allowed in explicit radix (and 0b,0c,0x)
>>
>> How can one h
I think , ( on the second reading of your post ) , that your proposal
of "my $x is yours" is logically very similar to my proposal of "our
$x is shared" but your proposal is cleaner if I understand it as
follows ( although I like more "shared" instead of "yours" for that
purpose ) : instead of ali
If I misunderstood you -- correct me. It seems that all you worry
about is that you want some variable be seen in several subroutines
.. you propose a mechanism of passing them between desired subroutins
by default through all the dynamical chain of sub calls "connecting
them. It seems , on the
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose it's very doable to have a FrenchPerl6 editor/parser/whatever
> that makes most of this transparent, but the thing I like the most about
> programming languages it that their are foreign languages.
Microsoft once made a huge experimen
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
> When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
> around, just to build a perl with NV==double? I've looked around, can't
> find anything about it except in KNOWN_ISSUES (only match in RT is
> "Parrot_sprintf-related stuff"). Sc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes:
> We have to--otherwise we can't have the self-modifying parser Larry
> desperately wants.
That's funny. I wondered precisely why I'd been working on self-modifying
parsers in C.
--
10. The Earth quakes and the heavens rattle; the beasts of nature flock
toge
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without varargs macros this is not really simple. (IIRC they are
> introduced in C99, but are in gcc for years now).
Indeed, C99 standardized them, but in a way that differs from GCC.
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
> PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Simon Cozens:
# $a = 2 | 3;
# print $a;
#
# but here's another way of looking at it. Given that we have a
# junction of two integers, we look at the zeroth bit of the
# junction. If ANY of the zeroth bits in 2 and 3 are set, then
# we set the zeroth bit in the result. If ANY of the firs
Apologies if this has already been covered, but I haven't been able to
keep up to date much recently. It occurs to me that the distinction between
the use of &, | and ^ for bitwise ops and their use for junctions can be
flattened. For instance, consider
$a = 2 | 3;
print $a;
Of course, i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> While no assumption is going unquestioned for Perl 6, I do still
> believe that the decision not to overload + for concatenation is one
> of the few things I did right in Perl 1.
Fair enough. And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself (or behind myself)
anyway
26 matches
Mail list logo
