Looks a little familiar.. Great job!
I'm glad your examples make use of lexically scoping temporary
variables. That's a technique I picked up a little too late for PTDN,
unfortunately.
On 6/17/06, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anybody is interested on this list,
the slides and the e
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 11:18:41PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:59:45 -0700
>
>WRT exception handling, I think the lisp condition/handler model is a good
>starting point. It's simple enough to explain and use, and s
From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:59:45 -0700
WRT exception handling, I think the lisp condition/handler model is a good
starting point. It's simple enough to explain and use, and static models
can easily be implemented in terms of it.
Excellent;
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:52:26PM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> $x = 1 if my $x;
>
> The compiler is "allowed" to complain, but does that means it's also
> okay to not die fatally, and recover by pretending as if the user has
> said this?
>
> # Current Pugs behaviour
> $OUTER::x =
在 2006/6/24 上午 8:41 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
because later in the scope $x may be declared, so it's safer to just
put OUTER right there.
I don't think $x can be declared later in the scope. According to
S04,
If you've referred to $x prior to the first declaration,
and the compiler
Hi,
Is Parrot IO going to be implemented via opcodes or PMC?
I looked at some old email discussion. There were discussions on refactoring
some IO opcodes to PMC's (e.g socket opcodes). Have we reached on any
decisions as to how we are going to implement the Parrot IO?
--
Thanks,
Vishal
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:41:44AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 08:03:47AM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> > 2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to write in than
> > >C?
> > >If yes, is it logical t
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 08:03:47AM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> 2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to write in than
> >C?
> >If yes, is it logical to write opcodes such as this one in Parrot assembler
> >itself?
>
> Err, well
2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:03PM -0700, Matt Diephouse wrote:
[Parrot assembler implementation]
> Of course, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like an opcode to do it for
> me. :-)
Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to writ
so back to foo("bar"). What's the default behavior? String doesn't Num,
does it? though is does convert if the value is good
Does that mean foo("123") should or should not dispatch to foo(Int)?
Or even foo(Num), for that matter Oy, I could see some headaches
around setting these rules in
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:03PM -0700, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> While you can't do this with find_lex currently, you *can* do it. Tcl
> walks the lexpads to find lexicals. (See
> languages/tcl/runtime/variables.pir):
[Parrot assembler implementation]
> Of course, that doesn't mean that I would
11 matches
Mail list logo
