On Oct 2, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Will Coleda wrote:
I've attached the generated PIR output for the sample program,
which outputs "10"
set a 0
while {$a < 10} {
incr a
}
puts $a
Ok, technically, it's not the output of a complete PIR program, it's
the concatenated output of several chunks. O
The simple version of the compiler is now mostly done in my sandbox:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t/cmd_global.t 3 768 63 50.00% 2-4
t/cmd_proc.t 4 1024
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #37321]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37321 >
A quick check shows this fails at str[index] on line 78.
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 02:22:01PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> And the more general form was:
>
> $sum = reduce { $^a + $^b } @items;
>
> Yes, it is called reduce, because "foldl" is a miserable name.
So, the target of running a loop with both the current
and previous elements accessible cou
Austin Hastings wrote:
1. Requirement to repeat the possibly complex expression for the list.
2. Possible high cost of generating the list.
3. Possible unique nature of the list.
The subroutine addresses #1, but not 2 or 3.
It does address 2. The list is generated once (wherever) and only pa
On Oct 1, 2005, at 22:20, Martin D Kealey wrote:
So can we look towards having things like "map" and "grep" be parallel
(or
at least unordered) by default?
I don't think so. First and foremost, these functions produce ordered
results, that's the Perl semantics of it. Second, while we can fo
On 10/1/05, David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All in all, I think that might just be the end of the tunnel up
> ahead. Go us for getting here, and loud applause to @Larry for
> guiding us so well!
Applause for p6l for hashing out the issues that we didn't think of.
I recently wrote a "Pe
Damian Conway wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>> All of these have the same solution:
>>
>> @list = ...
>> for [undef, @list[0...]] ¥ @list ¥ [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] -> $last, $curr,
>> $next {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Which is all but illegible.
>
>
> Oh, no! You mean I might have to write a...sub
On 10/1/05, John Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forget what the final choice was for syntax for the reduce
> operator (it was probably even a different name from reduce -
> that's the APL name), but it would be given a list and an
> operator and run as:
>
> my $running = op.identity;
Leo wrote:
> > http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
> > The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software
> > Herb Sutter
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Jonathan Worthington replied:
> Yup, and it's encouraging to see Perl 6 is heading in a good direction on
> concurre
On Oct 1, 2005, at 18:11, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
ah I thought so. just making sure. Then another question WRT this;
will there be a register allocator? In other words, an attempt to
minimize the number of needed registers? (in my simple code generator
implementations, any time I need a new reg
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
On Oct 1, 2005, at 8:46, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,
I read that with the new calling conventions, there are a variable
number of registers. So, if I understand correctly, if a function
call takes 2 parameters, then there are only 2, and if there are 30
paramete
So, I was thinking about how $Larry's original plan for doing the
Perl6 design was something along the lines of "write a series of
Apocalypses, one for each chapter of the Camel book". I know that
the latest version of the Apocalypses are in SVN, but I checked
dev.perl.org just to see what
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:39:58PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Incidentally, the undef problem just vanishes here (being replaced by
> another problem).
Which reminds me that this same issue came up a while ago in a
different guise. There was a long discussion about the reduce
functionality that
On behalf of the Parrot team I'm proud to announce the release of
Parrot 0.3.0. I'd like to thank all involved people as well as our
sponsors for supporting us.
What is Parrot?
Parrot is a virtual machine aimed at running Perl6 and other dynamic
languages.
Parrot 0.3.0 changes and news
- New c
> -Original Message-
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 8:53 AM
> To: perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: Re: Look-ahead arguments in for loops
>
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > All of these have the same solution:
> >
> > @list = ...
> > fo
Austin Hastings wrote:
All of these have the same solution:
@list = ...
for [undef, @list[0...]] ¥ @list ¥ [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] -> $last, $curr,
$next {
...
}
Which is all but illegible.
Oh, no! You mean I might have to write a...subroutine!??
sub contextual (@list) {
ret
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 05:57:54 -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Internally, it may be the same. But with exceptions, it's implemented by
> someone other than the victim, and leveraged by all. That's the kind of
> abstraction I'm looking for. My problem with the whole notion of "Either
> errorMess
Damian Conway wrote:
> Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
>
> for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
> ...
> }
>
> ???
1. Requirement to repeat the possibly complex expression for the list.
2. Possible high cost of generating the list.
3. Po
TSa wrote:
>
> The view I believe Yuval is harboring is the one examplified
> in movies like The Matrix or The 13th Floor and that underlies
> the holodeck of the Enterprise: you can leave the intrinsic
> causality of the running program and inspect it. Usually that
> is called debugging. But this
On Sep 28, 2005, at 10:50, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
3) Release will follow at the weekend
I'll start the release procedure RSN. Please no more svn checkins at
all.
leo
Yuval Kogman wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 13:52:54 -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
[Bunches of stuff elided.]
>>A million years ago, $Larry pointed out that when we were able to use
>>'is just a' classifications on P6 concepts, it indicated that we were
>>making good forward progress. In t
On Oct 1, 2005, at 8:46, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,
I read that with the new calling conventions, there are a variable
number of registers. So, if I understand correctly, if a function call
takes 2 parameters, then there are only 2, and if there are 30
parameters, there will be a frame
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="090002080107010906030407"
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0539-3, 30/09/2005), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
--090002080107010906030407
Conte
24 matches
Mail list logo
