On 25.4.2007, at 15:06, Nicholas Clark wrote:
So Parrot is the odd one out here, for relying on an external
language for
its extended build process. I'm not sure if this is significant.
Isn't Parrot more comparable to JVM and CLI in this regard, in that
it's a theoretically language-indepen
On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided
> upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or
> an AST.
Two things. First, if the AST path is taken, doesn't that mean that
the AST representation has
Perl6 will have macros. Good. Cool. But, sadly, that seems to be close
to the most specific thing anyone says about the subject. There is
some further discussion in Apocalypse & Exegesis 6, but nothing in the
Synopsis.
Now, considering that macros are a language feature and that the
Synopses are p
On 24/05/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidentally, would 'laukurdottir' be a proper Icelandic offence? :-)
It'd be 'lauksdóttir' (due to declension) and mean 'daughter of an
onion'. If nothing else, it would make people look at you in a funny
way... ;)
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt
Icelandic: laukur (Incidentally, none of you will ever guess how to
correctly pronounce that.)
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt verlieren;
härte heißt regieren.
- "Glas und Tränen", Megaherz
On 14/05/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
>
> 1. To add things up:
>
> $sum = [+] @amounts;
>
> 2. To calculate the probability that I'll need to use a reduction today:
>
> $fi
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:56:58 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:48:55 -0500, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > use less syntax;
> Back out the entire p6 grammar and put in lisp's instead...
Huh. I suppose that's the only difference these days..
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:37:00 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for =$*IN {...}
> for =$*ARGS {...}
Yay. A generalised form of the input operator, which can create even
handier idioms for simple file processing. Maybe I wasn't clear
enough. My issue wasn't specifically with '.lin
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:49:49 -0500, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 09:58:44PM +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
> > It should. EcmaScript is also a relatively small language, which would
> > work strongly in its advantage...
>
>
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.compiler -- It's there.
Correct, though, that it's not listed on the lists page...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:02:23 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> perl6-compiler is missing at http://dev.perl.org/perl6/lists/ and it
> seems not to be gate
First off, I've been mucking about in the re_tests file, doing some
braindead translation. (That thing is going to need a fair bit of
rethinking, I believe...) Someone please stop me if that's not needed.
:)
Also, although the language itself is pretty much defined by now, one
would think that at
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:46:37 -0700, Edward Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could even say that in the chinese case that if you have
>
> "?$B#3" --> 3 --> "3"
>
> that's a bug. It had *better* turn back into "?$B#3" when you do
> the int to string conversion. That's a internationalizatio
Now you're underusing smileys. I hope.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:01 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:49:07PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> : I fear, and with good reasons, that this may be too wild a case of an
> : extremization, but I wonder wether, just l
> Okay, it ought to be there soon. I added it in the "New operators"
> section, since it's pretty different from =~.
That'd also be appropriate, but I didn't see an explicit mention anywhere...
> Arguably the ~~ table should go in S3 instead of S4.
It most likely should, since ~~ is an operator,
I know that, you know that ... but the synopses never actually say it.
It's evident from context, but it's never said explicitly. I would
*think* that should be in the "Operator renaming" section of S3, and
presume this is an oversight?
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt verlieren;
härte heißt regieren.
-
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:43:08 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd suggest looking at the t/op/re_tests file from Perl 5. It's based
> on the test suite that originally came with Henry Spencer's regular
> expression package. It would, of course, need to be translated and
> extended,
Wh! :)
Childish? Who?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:22:08 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been working at updating the various synopses on dev.perl.org.
> In particular, you folks might like to know that the regex synopsis at
>
>http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/S05.html
>
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:18:38 -0400, JOSEPH RYAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to write tests, I would say the best place to start is the A5 stuff, for
> two reasons:
>
> a.) Grammar/Regex tests would be really useful in testing the Grammar engine.
>
> b.) The A5 stuff is definitely th
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:37:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While "Dan is always right" has that nice ego-stroke effect, I don't
> think too many people would or, really, should, stand for it. We'd be
> better served with "The designer makes the final call, for better or
> worse" a
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:57:22 -0700, Gregory Keeney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rule Number One:
> â No one wants the â [interrobang if your email client or font
> doesn't like utf-8]
> Rule Number Two:"
> â Dan gets the â
I was thinking more along the lines of "Dan is always right" and "Da
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:34:50 +0200, Robert Schwebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:23:36AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > No offense, but it *doesn't* *matter*. We're not using autoconf, as
> > the subject of this thread makes clear. That's not negotiable.
>
> A really conv
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 07:33:45 -0600, Patrick R. Michaud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're in the beginning stages of building a basic perl 6 grammar engine
> (i.e., probably without p6 closures) that compiles to parrot and handles
> basic optimizations. Concurrent with that I'm working on a Perl 6
Since this list has been started, I'd assume that means work on the
final Perl6 compiler is about to start. (Although, with this crowd,
you never do know...)
In the interest of a layman's curiosity: What's the current status?
(And I already wonder if this won't make the summaries even more irregu
So ... it's actually happening? There's really going to *be* a Perl6?
It's not just an april fool's gone wrong, like Parrot? ;)
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:57:23 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The list... is open. It's meant for discussion of the perl 6 compiler
> specifically. Perl6-i
As it stands, though, perl6-internals isn't about perl, but Parrot ...
so of the two lists, language is arguably more appropriate...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:37:04 -0400, Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I may be completely off base here, but I think this whole discussion
> would be bette
Harry Jackson wrote:
If there are any shy lurkers out there please speak now or forever hold
your peace.
Poit. That's me.
26 matches
Mail list logo
