On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:37:41PM +0200, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> I released a few days ago the Neko intermediate language at
> http://nekovm.org . In the FAQ I'm comparing Neko to LLVM / C-- and Parrot.
> According to a mail sent to me by Leopold Toetsch I got some points wrong
> when trying to
Here is an update to Synopsis 3 incorporating recent additions. If
any of this is wrong or disagreeable, this is the time to say so.
Luke
S03.pod.diff
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 04:13:02AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: What is the resulting data structure in each of the following:
:
: -<< [1, 2]
[-1, -2]
: -<< [[1,2], [3,4]]
[[-1,-2], [-3,-4]]
This is assuming that AoA is treated as a two dimensional shape, of course.
One could imagin
What is the resulting data structure in each of the following:
-<< [1, 2]
-<< [[1,2], [3,4]]
-<< [[1,2], 3]
[[1,2], 3] >>+<< [[4,5], 6]
[1, 2, [3]] >>+<< [[4,5], 6]
Luke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 19, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Kevin Tew wrote:
I've been watching pugs for a while and would like to get more
involved.
To that end I've been exploring the source tree.
As a newbie, I've got a lot of questions, So I'm attempting to
learn by
Autrijus, I think your pictures look great. If it is not too much
of a trade secret, I'd like to ask:
1. What program(s) did you use to make the pictures?
2. Did you create the icons yourself or get them from somewhere?
Thanks.
-Kris
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:45:16AM -0700, Kris Bosland wrote:
> Autrijus, I think your pictures look great.
Thanks! Want a T-shirt from http://cafepress.com/pugscode/ ? :-)
> If it is not too much of a trade secret, I'd like to ask:
>
> 1. What program(s) did you use to make the pictures?
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 09:15 -0600, Kevin Tew wrote:
> Anyway, this is my first attempt at a pugs doc patch :)
> Comments welcome!
Welcome. I'm sure someone will offer you a commit bit very soon. In
the meantime, my only comment is that, outside of class, module, file,
and package names, where s
Hi list,
I released a few days ago the Neko intermediate language at
http://nekovm.org . In the FAQ I'm comparing Neko to LLVM / C-- and Parrot.
According to a mail sent to me by Leopold Toetsch I got some points wrong
when trying to generalize theses three frameworks in the same category,
which o
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:39:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Actually, that's an argument that : is in a different class than the regex
: quantifiers, and required named should be
:
: sub bar (+$:key)
:
: as I speculated earlier. Maybe we just force that to bind to $key instead
: of $:key.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:30:41PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: In short, "me too".
:
: Now some comments:
:
: > foo($a, $b, $c)
: >
: > You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
:
: This is very very important for leas
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:27:38 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
> positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
> but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
> in one zone.
This is someth
Hmm, if we take + away from named, it can become the "required" marker,
so
sub foo ($a,$b,?$c)
is really short for
sub foo (+$a,+$b,?$c)
and required named parameters then become
sub bar (+:$key)
And, of course, that means that
sub baz (+?$key)
is a required optional paramet
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
In short, "me too".
Now some comments:
> foo($a, $b, $c)
>
> You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
This is very very important for least surprise and all that.
> It's much less work for the runtime. You don't have to
First I'd like to thank all contributors for the steady stream of
patches that made this round revision number possible.
Rev 9000 happened to hit leo-ctx5. It is a test and looks like this:
$ cat cobj.pir
.sub make_obj @IMMEDIATE, @ANON
.local pmc cl, o
cl = newclass "Foo"
addattrib
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I propose that we move the magic out of the Pair type, and into a
: syntactic form.
That's kinda the direction we were already moving with the *%foo proposal,
so I think I like it, but I'll need to steep my brain in a bit more caffeine
I've been watching pugs for a while and would like to get more involved.
To that end I've been exploring the source tree.
As a newbie, I've got a lot of questions, So I'm attempting to learn by
updating and adding documenation.
My patches may seem obvious to the seasoned pugs hacker, however, I'm
The added test for [array get] is actually very good, thanks!
Thanks, applied, r9002.
On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Amos Robinson (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by "Amos Robinson"
# Please include the string: [perl #36952]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this i
# New Ticket Created by "Amos Robinson"
# Please include the string: [perl #36952]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36952 >
This thing should work with the latest SVN.
It'll add some tests to tcl/t/cmd_array.
We've seen many problems come up with the current special treatment of
pairs. Here's what I can think of:
* Pairs are restricted to a particular position in the argument list, which
leads to confusion (why isn't this being passed named?) and poor
end-weight in something like this:
f
On 8/19/05, Yiyi Hu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> { a b c }.paris;
> This will cause pugs run, won't stop until reached the "world
> end".(out of memory)
Fixed.
> hmm,
>
> BTW, What should { a } return by default?
> an hash ref or An error?
Neither: a code block that exectues the (probably undef
{ a b c }.paris;
This will cause pugs run, won't stop until reached the "world
end".(out of memory)
hmm,
BTW, What should { a } return by default?
an hash ref or An error?
> it seems to me that the icu libs should indeed be added to the config.
> i don't compile with icu, so i'm probably not the best one to test the
> change--but if nobody takes ownership of this issue in the next few
> days, i'll take a look at it.
That would be great Jerry! I think it should be onl
23 matches
Mail list logo
