Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 12:07 AM -0400 8/19/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >There are a number of shortcomings in the API, which I'd like to address
> >here, and propose improvments for.
>
> You're conflating language level strings with low-level strings. Don't.
>
> STRINGs, the parrot stru
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 9:27 PM -0400 8/21/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >I would like for Parrot to have some way of creating Weak References; I
> >think that this is probably a vital feature.
>
> No, it isn't, and we've discussed this before. (You were involved, as
> I recall) Weak refere
Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 23, 2003, at 08:17 , Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
>
> > The reason this is safe to do is because it's *only* created by the
> > dod,
>
> Allocating memory during garbage collection?
Why not? Or at least, why not for sys_mem_allocate()d memory?
--
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:44:52PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:48:02AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> > I guess you could think of the lifecycle of an individual object as
> > being controlled by a few significant life events:
> >
> > 1. birth
> > 2. the last reference disa
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:48:02AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> It would probably make discussion easier if people switched to using
> better terminology. I prefer using "destruction" to mean the memory
> for an object actually getting freed, and "finalization" for whatever
> cleanup actions an objec
At 12:09 PM +0200 8/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Parrot programs have commandline info in P0 but there is no means to
communicate an exit-status to the shell.
We could do:
1) REG_INT(5) ...has exit code
2) end Ix ... end opcode has exit code
3) exit_code Ix .. set exit code
1) breaks existing pr
At 10:01 AM +0200 8/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I have problems imaginating such kind of STRINGs.
You lack sufficient imagination -- Larry's suggested that Perl6 strings
may consist of a list of chunks. I can easily imagine
At 12:57 PM +0200 8/21/03, Peter Gibbs wrote:
If the string API is to be revised, I would like to suggest that
consideration be given to having a single string vtable, merging
the current encoding and chartype structures into a single one.
I think this has been addressed, but in case it hasn't... w
At 12:07 AM -0400 8/19/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
There are a number of shortcomings in the API, which I'd like to address
here, and propose improvments for.
You're conflating language level strings with low-level strings. Don't.
STRINGs, the parrot structure and what S registers point to, are
With great interest have I read about the idea of a Generic Code
generator and AST representation. I would like to point out that the
current experiments with the gcc show that RDF provides an optimal
representation of AST structures.
I have targeted the parrot as one of the language systems to b
At 6:45 PM -0700 8/18/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
"Benjamin Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What we'd like is a way (and there've been a couple proposed) to make it
so that the sweep at the end of scope can *quickly* determine that all
objects needing timely destr
Matthew O. Persico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:48:11 -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
>[snip]
>>The project page is at http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/. �Please take a
>>look, tell me your thoughts, and if there are any serious ommissions
>>from the Phalanx 100 module list...
>
>Tk?
If
It would probably make discussion easier if people switched to using
better terminology. I prefer using "destruction" to mean the memory
for an object actually getting freed, and "finalization" for whatever
cleanup actions an object performs at some point after it is no longer
accessible. So "timel
At 9:27 PM -0400 8/21/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
I would like for Parrot to have some way of creating Weak References; I
think that this is probably a vital feature.
No, it isn't, and we've discussed this before. (You were involved, as
I recall) Weak references can be done entirely with notifica
Michal Wallace:
# On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
# > We have two kinds of file/line information: Parrot source and HLL
# > source. So the C<.currentline> macro needs duplication or an
argument
# > specifying, which source it should denote.
#
# And when parrot throws an error and comp
Gordon Henriksen:
# p6.pl 1: my $var is int;
# p6.pl 2: $var = ($var * $var + 1) * 2 + 3;
#
# p6.imc 1: .local int var
# p6.imc 2: setfile "p6.pl"
# p6.imc 3: setline 1
# p6.imc 4: var = 0 # So far, so good.
# p6.imc 5: var = var *
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:33:20PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I think what we're going to have to do is have a way to mark
> filehandes as either eager for destruction or lazy for destruction.
> (I'm not sure which, it depends on the default Larry chooses) That
> way there'll at least be some
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:19:37PM +0100 it came to pass that Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > 1) REG_INT(5) ...has exit code
>
> I like the idea of (1), but I'm used to C. It seems quite clean if the
> top level subroutine just "returns" to its caller, which happens to be
> the shell. C (and perl) can
On Sunday, August 24, 2003, at 10:19, Nicholas Clark wrote:
IIRC someone said that in python to exit (in what sounds like this
fashion) you just raise a system.exit exception. By default it gets
caught by the caller of your main routine, and your program exits. But
you can trap the exception, a
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:48:11 -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> The project page is at http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/. Please take a
> look, tell me your thoughts, and if there are any serious ommissions
> from the Phalanx 100 module list...
Test::Reporter?
--
Adam J. Foxson
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:07:48PM +0200, Jos Visser wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:09:21PM +0200 it came to pass that Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > Parrot programs have commandline info in P0 but there is no means to
> > communicate an exit-status to the shell.
> > We could do:
> >
> > 1) REG_
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:48:11 -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
[snip]
>The project page is at http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/. Please take a
>look, tell me your thoughts, and if there are any serious ommissions
>from the Phalanx 100 module list...
Tk?
--
Matthew O. Persico
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:09:21PM +0200 it came to pass that Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Parrot programs have commandline info in P0 but there is no means to
> communicate an exit-status to the shell.
> We could do:
>
> 1) REG_INT(5) ...has exit code
> 2) end Ix ... end opcode has exit code
> 3) ex
Parrot programs have commandline info in P0 but there is no means to
communicate an exit-status to the shell.
We could do:
1) REG_INT(5) ...has exit code
2) end Ix ... end opcode has exit code
3) exit_code Ix .. set exit code
1) breaks existing programs but fits calling conventions
2) could break
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> We have two kinds of file/line information: Parrot source and HLL
> source. So the C<.currentline> macro needs duplication or an argument
> specifying, which source it should denote.
And when parrot throws an error and complains about line 5,
which o
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do macros have their own line number context, or do they get the context
> from the code they're being called from?
Macros have their own line numbers. Tracking filenames (from .include)
isn't done yet.
Debugging PASM with JIT/i386 inside ddd[1] foll
I have removed now the "feature" of parsing code outside of subs.
All code must be contained now in .sub/.pcc_sub/.emit blocks.
For PASM source files an .emit/.eom is provided by the lexer.
This was announced 3 weeks ago. parrot/imcc/perl6 tests still pass
(modulo s/inf/Inf/). I didn't look at
Robert Spier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The HLL doesn't know, how many ops one source line will need.
>>
>> Not *normally*, but if it's including code which is already literal
>> assembler, it does: Imagine a version of lex/yacc wherein the the blocks
>> of code you give are imcc or pasm (inst
Nicholas Clark wrote:
So I assume, that the returned PerlUndef should be put into the
aggregate, if there was none before access.
I believe yes, it must, for consistency.
Is there an op to copy the value out of an aggregate, without changing
the aggregate? The (shallow copy) value assignment, nee
Luke Palmer wrote:
Ok, so supposing this split happens, what would it look like? As in,
would there now be two vtables, one for variables and one for values?
Would it just be a logical split?
AFAIK we would have still one vtable divided into sub-structures. At
least the get/set_ methods would b
Now, I don't really have much of an opinion on compound strings in
general. I do want to address one particular argument, though—the lazily
slurped file string.
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 07:22 , Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
A foolish question: can you imagine strings which are lazily read fr
On Saturday, August 23, 2003, at 08:17 , Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
The reason this is safe to do is because it's *only* created by the dod,
Allocating memory during garbage collection?
—
Gordon Henriksen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday, August 23, 2003, at 08:22 , Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
setline_i Ix # the next line is x, each succeeding line increases.
The HLL doesn't know, how many ops one source line will need.
Not *normally*, but if it's in
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> Togos wrote:
> >
> > What's the reasoning behind putting the object a
> > method is being called on in P2 instead of in the
> > first parameter of the method? I have a feeling that
> > putting it as the first parameter of the method would
> > make t
> For that matter, won't the optomizer wreak havoc with other all of the
> various other uses of .setline?
One would hope.
> Anyway, how about this semantic: .setline_i would associate an
> ...
Before making up semantics, it might be useful to look at what other
systems do, like STABS and DWARF
Togos wrote:
>
> What's the reasoning behind putting the object a
> method is being called on in P2 instead of in the
> first parameter of the method? I have a feeling that
> putting it as the first parameter of the method would
> make the lives of the python folks a little bit
> easier. Would i
Robert Spier wrote:
>
> > > The HLL doesn't know, how many ops one source line will need.
> >
> > Not *normally*, but if it's including code which is already literal
> > assembler, it does: Imagine a version of lex/yacc wherein the the
> > blocks of code you give are imcc or pasm (instead of C).
What's the reasoning behind putting the object a
method is being called on in P2 instead of in the
first parameter of the method? I have a feeling that
putting it as the first parameter of the method would
make the lives of the python folks a little bit
easier. Would it make it harder for someone e
> > The HLL doesn't know, how many ops one source line will need.
>
> Not *normally*, but if it's including code which is already literal
> assembler, it does: Imagine a version of lex/yacc wherein the the blocks
> of code you give are imcc or pasm (instead of C). Clearly, there's one
> op per li
Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> Taking a thread from Perl 6 Internals. Will Perl 6 support this behavior?
>
> $ perl <<'EOT'
> my @ary;
> my $ref = \$ary[0];
> $$ref = "value";
> print '$ary[0] : ', $ary[0], "\n";
> EOT
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But suppose that at the end of DoD, the object we're weakly referring
> > to gets marked as alive? Now, we would need to look through that
> > object's list of destroy-functions, and remove all of the
> > weakref-c
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> Michal Wallace wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > > If you want, instead, to serialize interpreter->microthreads,
> > > however... well, you'd *still* get almost the whole interpreter
> > > serialized, but you're g
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Normal processors also don't have setline and setfile operations. They
> > > use an extra segment in the *.o file, which is only used by the
> > > debugger. This could also be done in parrot.
> >
> > In other word
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In other words, setline and setfile ops in source don't translate to
> > actual ops in the bytecode, but instead translate to additions/changes
> > to the debugging segment?
>
> Exactly. (+ C, which isn't done yet)
>
I dislike replying to myself, however, it seems I haven't been clear
enough in describing how I think this (c|sh)ould be implemented.
Let's abstract DoD to the following psuedocode:
function markalive(p) {
if(!p.is_alive)
interpreter->dod_queue.enqueue(p);
}
for p in all
45 matches
Mail list logo
