Steve Fink:
# On Sep-15, Brent Dax wrote:
# > Steve Fink:
# > # 2. typedef struct Parrot_Interp stuff. Brent, you're the man -- do
you
# > # still need some agreement on conventions before you rename our
world?
# >
# > You mean we might actually (gasp!) get this done? Horrors!
#
# Huh? No, I just
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
> > > to an existing class at runtime?
> >
> > Unless the class has been explicitly closed, yes.
>
> That strikes me as back-to-front.
(Moving to internals. Definitely not a language discussion.)
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Sorry if this is a crack fuelled idea, and sorry that I don't
> have a patch handy to implement it, but might the following
> work:
With the same caveats (coke, no diff), try this strategy on for size:
The
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> The focus here, I think, is the following problem class:
>
> sub twenty_five() { 25 }# Optimized to inline
> sub foo() {
> print twenty_five; # Inlined
> &twenty_five := { 36 };
> print twenty_f
> * e.g. add_n_i_n => add_n_n_i
> * div_n_ic_n => div_n_nc_n
> * div_n_i_n => set_n_i ; div_n_n_n
> + * ge_n_ic_ic => ge_nc_ic
-+-+
| |
| |
_|_
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #23815]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23815 >
This fixes an apparent obvious typo in the Jako Makefile. I also put in
the cd-back-to
> Dan spoke too soon, we have just confirmed that PIERS_C =
> 2.04739336492890995260663507109 * BRENT_D
Brent isn't adult? Gosh!
BRENT_D = 36/2.04739336492890995260663507109 = appr. 17 ages and 296 days
> Because there are some assertions that can lead the optimizer to make some
> fundamental assumptions, and if those assumptions get violated or
> redefined while you're in the middle of executing a function that makes
> use of those assumptions, well...
>
> Changing a function from pure to impure,
On Sep-15, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure how to use the current pdd03's calling conventions to
> > implement what I want right now. Let's consider Perl6:
>
> First, that whole stuff definitely needs more clarification. Calling and
> return conventi
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:29:52AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> >From Test::More docs:
>
> # XXX BAD! $pope->isa('Catholic') eq 1
> is( $pope->isa('Catholic'), 1,'Is the Pope Catholic?' );
>
>This does not check if "$pope-"isa('Catholic')> is
>
Ovid wrote:
> --shuffle will shuffle the order in which the tests are run to ensure that
> you have no accidental dependency on test order.
>
> --fast sets and environment variable that can be checked in the test scripts.
> For example, if you have a couple of tests that double the time of your tes
On Sep-15, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> Moreover, Steve Fink's comment just below the line you propose deleting
> leads me to believe there's something more to it, but I don't actually
> know what the issue was.
>
> > *** String.pm.~1.6.~Sun Mar 16 01:02:08 2003
> > --- String.pm Mon Se
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 17:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The easy-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case; otherwise a lot
> of optimisation that should be possible isn't because the programmers are
> too inexperienced/lazy/confused to put the "closed" tags in.
The thinking at the last de
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
> > to an existing class at runtime?
>
> Unless the class has been explicitly closed, yes.
That strikes me as back-to-front.
The easy-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case;
At 5:07 PM -0500 9/15/03, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
The focus here, I think, is the following problem class:
sub twenty_five() { 25 }# Optimized to inline
sub foo() {
print twenty_five; # Inlined
&t
At 3:30 PM -0600 9/15/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
The problem is we need to somehow un-optimize while we're running. That
is most likely a very very hard thing to do, so another solution is
probably needed.
It is, indeed, a very hard problem. It's solvable if you disallow
several classes of optimizati
Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Melvin Smith wrote:
>
>> Dan spoke too soon, we have just confirmed that PIERS_C =
>> 2.04739336492890995260663507109 * BRENT_D
>
> They both know their time of birth to the nearest nanosecond?
> Impressive.
I don't. But I do kno
Nicholas Clark writes:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
> > changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
> > regeneration. That's no big deal for code you h
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
> changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
> regeneration. That's no big deal for code you haven't executed yet, but if
> yo
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ the *big* move around ]
>
> > Anything I'm missing? This is for *after* 0.0.11, of course. (And
> > potentially after a case of really good beer, soda, or dog food is shipped
> > off to Robert... :)
>
>
Michael Scott (via RT) wrote:
Makefile:600: *** missing separator (did you mean TAB instead of 8
spaces?). Stop.
This is already fixed.
Thanks,
leo
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ the *big* move around ]
> Anything I'm missing? This is for *after* 0.0.11, of course. (And
> potentially after a case of really good beer, soda, or dog food is shipped
> off to Robert... :)
I like that. What about subsystems (io, encodings, chartypes, p
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Solaris 8, with Sun's compiler and a very very recent perl-5.8.x, I'm
> getting several failures in perl6/languages/t/compiler/1.t. Here's a
> typical sample. Note that the difference is simply in whether or not to
> include the trailing zeros in t
On Solaris 8, with Sun's compiler and a very very recent perl-5.8.x, I'm
getting several failures in perl6/languages/t/compiler/1.t. Here's a
typical sample. Note that the difference is simply in whether or not to
include the trailing zeros in the print command. Does anyone know which
is "right"
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > This problem's been around a while -- I know I've reported it before. Is
> > it time to give up on 5.00503? I will retest with 5.8.x, but the
> > compilation takes a *long* time.
>
> I'm not personally a fan of 5.005 compatibility, but it looks to me
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Steve Fink wrote:
>
> > I suppose that was a question for the language list. But then I'd
have
> > to read the language list.
>
> A fate worse than razor burn, to be sure. Possibly one worse than
really
> bad Mexican food, but either way I'd not wish i
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Steve Fink wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose that was a question for the language list. But then I'd
> have
> > > to read the language list.
> >
> > A fate worse than razor burn, to be sure. Possibly one wors
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So the problem is actually a dependency on a module not shipped with
> perl5.00503.
>
> This problem's been around a while -- I know I've reported it before. Is
> it time to give up on 5.00503? I will retest with 5.8.x, but the
> compilation takes a *l
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Dan spoke too soon, we have just confirmed that PIERS_C =
> 2.04739336492890995260663507109 * BRENT_D
They both know their time of birth to the nearest nanosecond?
Impressive.
Simon
On Solaris 8, with Sun's supplied perl5.00503 and with Sun's cc, I get the
following error when trying to build perl6:
cd perl6 && make test && cd ..
/usr/bin/perl t/harness
t/builtins/array# Failed test (t/builtins/array.t at line 27)
# got: 'error:imcc:parse error, unexpected EO
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
> > disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
> > nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot,
> > throwaway optimizations ma
Dan spoke too soon, we have just confirmed that PIERS_C =
2.04739336492890995260663507109 * BRENT_D
-Melvin
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/15/2003 11:43 AM
To: Melvin Smith/ATLANTA/Contr/[EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: This
On Solaris 8, with Sun's supplied perl5.00503 and with Sun's cc, I get the
following error when trying to build jako:
cd jako && make && cd ..
/usr/bin/perl -I lib jakoc examples/bench.jako > examples/bench.imc ||
(rm -f examples/bench.imc && false)
Can't modify subroutine entry in scalar assi
Poor guy, I just told him the same thing off-list. Well I come to think of
it,
I guess that makes me an old fogey too.
-Melvin
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/15/2003 11:39 AM
To: Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAI
Dan Sugalski:
# On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Brent Dax wrote:
# > Piers Cawley:
# > # Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way
could
# > there
# > # be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by
reading
# > # through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing li
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Brent Dax wrote:
> Piers Cawley:
> # Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could
> there
> # be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
> # through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
> # boiling t
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This isn't entirely an easy task, however, since you can't throw away
> > or redo a function/method/sub/whatever that you're already in
> > somewhere in the call-chain, which means any optimizations will
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Alex Burr writes:
> >> In theory you could write one as a perl6 macro, although it would be
> >> more convenient if there was someway of obtaining the syntax tree of a
> >> previously defined function other t
Piers Cawley:
# Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could
there
# be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
# through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
# boiling them down into a summary?
Happy birthday, Piers. E
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
>> disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
>> nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot, throwaway
>> optimizations make a lot of sense--we can buil
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
>> Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
>> to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
>> image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course having a "no subclasses" tag means the compiler can
Okay, since we're fighting over what goes where in the tree, we might as
well do it right. Leo wants IMCC put in a separate subdirectory, and I
can't much disagree, except that none of the rest of the core engine code
is in a separate subdirectory.
Since we've been threatening for years (litera
On 15 Sep 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> > Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
> > to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
> > image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
>
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Steve Fink wrote:
> Time to clean up! How are Windows builds doing these days? Looking at
> the tinderbox, it looks like we've got a Debian PPC, a FreeBSD, and an
> x86 Linux, but nothing "interesting". And all broken by some jerk who
> didn't update the MANIFEST.
I'll kick g
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Steve Fink wrote:
> I'm not sure how to use the current pdd03's calling conventions to
> implement what I want right now. Let's consider Perl6:
>
> sub f ($a, $b) { ... }
> f(1, 2);
> &f(1, 2);
>
> (I'm not sure if that is correct Perl6 code -- what I mean is that I
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
> to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
> image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
People get upset when CPAN authors add stuff t
[Recipients trimmed back to just the list, because it had gotten very
silly. When replying to someone who's on the list, there's no need to
copy them personally, too; they just end up with duplicates. :)]
On 2003-09-15 at 09:21:18, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Great. But will it also be possible to add
On 13 Sep 2003, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
>
> Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
> Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
> language.
O
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will
> > definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you
> > can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't" crap.
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >
> > Of course having a "no subclasses" tag means the compiler can change a
> > method call into a direct subroutine call, but I
# New Ticket Created by Michael Scott
# Please include the string: [perl #23809]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23809 >
I seem to be specializing in minimalist patches.
Building the latest checkout from CVS
> 4. Win32. I don't know that it's broken, but I'm assuming it is on
> general principle.
D:\build\parrot>perl Configure.pl
[snip]
Probing for C headers...done.
Determining some sizes...Linker failed (see test.ldo) at
lib/Parrot/Configure/St
ep.pm line 170.
The code
# 'link' needs to be link
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
>> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will
>> > definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you
>> > can't subclass String, because we t
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030914
Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could there
be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
boiling them down into a summary?
Piers Cawley writes:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will
> > definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you
> > can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't" crap.
>
> Great. But will
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Leo: the seg fault seems bad,
> + LOCALS => '.local PerlInt a',
adding "a = new PerlInt" here fixed the segfault, the test runs
fine.
leo
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. languages/imcc move. Last I heard, this was blocked on Dan & Leo
> coming to an agreement over where it, and the rest of the source code,
> should go.
Robert said:
"We should probably wait until after 0.0.11 for this, to minimize
disruption."
I'm fine wi
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alex Burr writes:
>
>> > But I confidently predict that no-one with write a useful
>> > partial evaluator for perl6. The language is simply too big.
>>
>> Then again, there are some very talented people wi
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alex Burr writes:
>> In theory you could write one as a perl6 macro, although it would be
>> more convenient if there was someway of obtaining the syntax tree of a
>> previously defined function other than quoting it (unless I've missed
>> that?).
>
> Th
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will
> definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you
> can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't" crap.
Great. But will it also be possible to add method
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how to use the current pdd03's calling conventions to
> implement what I want right now. Let's consider Perl6:
First, that whole stuff definitely needs more clarification. Calling and
return conventions are not symmetrical, C (number of items in
A couple of other things came to mind. Here's my current view of the
laundry list. Additions welcome.
1. languages/imcc move. Last I heard, this was blocked on Dan & Leo
coming to an agreement over where it, and the rest of the source code,
should go.
2. typedef struct Parrot_Interp stuff. Bre
63 matches
Mail list logo
