On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:53AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> What is the difference between:
>
> sub head(*$head, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> and
>
> sub head($head?, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
If you call head(@foo), in the first $head gets @foo[0] and in the
second it gets nothing (you didn't p
What is the difference between:
sub head(*$head, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
and
sub head($head?, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
?
The example calls it with
head( 1,2,3,4 );
I'm thinking that there are differences that are not apparent in this example.
--John
In S06, a wrong word:
"Alternately, optional fields may be marked by supplying a default value. "
should be parameters, not fields.
Now here is my question:
Params are bound in declaration order, not call order, and may refer to
previous parameters. But what if a multi makes use of your intenti
In S06, "A method's invocant always has the alias self. Other styles of self
can be declared with the self pragma."
What is the self pragma, and what are other styles of self, prey tell?
--John
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:27:34 -0700
1) The Garbage Collector is algorithmically inefficient . . .
The free object list is the reason that compacting/copying collectors
are popular, specifically that all you have to do to find the next
free o
On Friday 11 April 2008 17:27:34 chromatic wrote:
> 1) The Garbage Collector is algorithmically inefficient. There are various
> potential optimization strategies here which don't require us walking every
> allocated header in the system multiple times (yes, it's that bad in at
> least two places
I've committed a couple of minor optimizations which speed up Rakudo and Perl
OO in general by about 35%. There may be a few more lurking, but I keep
running into three spots which dominate most of the other optimization
strategies I might pursue.
1) The Garbage Collector is algorithmically in
From: "John M. Dlugosz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Apr 2008 20:12:41 -
. . .
What happens? The OUTER scope no longer exists at CALL 3. Does a
symbolic reference to OUTER require that the entire scope be
retained, just in case? If "OUTER" itself (or OUTER::OUTER::...) is
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:56:32PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:02:23PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> > > Greetings all,
> > >
> > > I just posted a little Parrot bench
OUTER::<$varname> (S06, "Out-of-scope names")
$OUTER::varname (S02, "Names")
specifies the $varname declared in the lexical scope surrounding the current
lexical scope (i.e. the scope in which the current block was defined).
sub outersub ()
{
my $a;
my $b;
my $closure = sub {
say $a; #
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:02:23PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journal that
> > i think it would be interesting for every
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2008 12:02:23 Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
>
> > I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journal that
> > i think it would be interesting for everyone to take a look. From my
> > point of
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
All default expressions to any parameter are defined to run in the
context that assumes any parameters to their left are already bound,
so you may safely depend on self already being set.
OK, so there is no technical reason why it can't work tha
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 08:02:23PM +0100, Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journal that
> i think it would be interesting for everyone to take a look.
Excellent! Is this benchmark pure PIR, or coming from a HLL
language
On Friday 11 April 2008 12:02:23 Nuno 'smash' Carvalho wrote:
> I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journal that
> i think it would be interesting for everyone to take a look. From my
> point of view Parrot finished in a very comfortable place between
> compiled and interpret
Bernhard Schmalhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> it was suggested by Andreas Rottmanm, rotty, to use 'riaxpander' in
> the implementation
> of 'Eclectus'. riaxpander is a macro expander for Scheme. It is
> licensed in a BSD-like way,
> http://mumble.net/~campbell/darcs/riaxpander/LICENCE
Greetings all,
I just posted a little Parrot benchmark in my use.perl's journal that
i think it would be interesting for everyone to take a look. From my
point of view Parrot finished in a very comfortable place between
compiled and interpreted languages. I've made the benchmarking very
easy to r
Hi,
it was suggested by Andreas Rottmanm, rotty, to use 'riaxpander' in the
implementation
of 'Eclectus'. riaxpander is a macro expander for Scheme. It is licensed
in a BSD-like way,
http://mumble.net/~campbell/darcs/riaxpander/LICENCE.
Can this code be added to 'languages/eclectus' in the Pa
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:47 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008 18:35:00 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > > [OO] Optimized isa() vtable entry for Class. Instead of delegating
> > > most of its work to isa_pmc(), this entry now performs its work
> > > directly.
Hi,
these are good improvements! It will also improve performance a bit I think.
currently I don't really have much time to work on it, but I will in
maybe a week or so (or 2 weeks, possibly)
If people are looking for additional Exercises I suggest these are nice :-)
kjs
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, maybe "control event blocks" and "control events", then...
I would call them flow blocks because this is where they are
called and what they influence: the flow of execution. This
nicely matches the flow charts used to describe the control
flow.
The other term I
21 matches
Mail list logo
