On 9/25/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> Exactly which exception is continued?
> [...]
Named restarts in Common Lisp appear to try to solve a related
problem, if I'm skimming this thread correctly. :-) (see [1]).
Michael
[1]
http://www.supelec.fr/docs/cltl/clm/node312.html#SE
On 4/15/05, Shevek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How can dropping a privilege for the duration of a (dynamic) scope be
> > implemented? Does this need to be implemented via a parrot intrinsic,
> > such as:
> >
> > without_privs(list_of_privs, code_to_be_run_without_these_privs);
> >
> > ..or is
Dan,
On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
> per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
> essentially the same thing)
Just to get me back on track: Does this mean that when you spawn a
thread, a se
Make "is" polymorphic :D
Michael
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:24:52 -0500 (EST), Abhijit Mahabal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Chip Salzenberg writes:
> >> I'd like to annotate Perl 6 parameters and other entities using
> >> traits, since that's the best w
Hum hum hum. What exactly does "destroying" mean in Perl 6? As memory
is managed it probably refers to invoking a finalizer..?
If yes, then you could also use an explicit construct such as C++'s
auto_ptr<> & the likes (read: an "auto" declaration), C# using()
mechanism (read: a "block statement" t
You could change the GC scheme (*cough*) to use one similar to
Python's (ref-counting + additional GC for cyclic references
*double-cough*).
Out-of-this-world-ly yours,
Michael
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:40:43 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hildo Biersma writes:
> > If the number of
6 elements..?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:33:11 -0800, David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Craig DeForest wrote:
>
>
> > @a[4; 0..5];
> > a 1x6 array (probably correct)? Or a 6 array (probably not
> > correct)?
>
> For the ignorant among us (su
ing with your firewall.
>
> -jeff
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Michael Walter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is it useful? not really. does it help you waste 5 minutes of your day?
> >
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is it useful? not really. does it help you waste 5 minutes of your day?
> certainly. :)
Waiting for the request to time out indeed wasted some idle time :-)
-ingly yours,
Michael
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:46:24 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch writes:
> > This term came up in a recent discussion[1]. But I'd like to give this
> > term a second meaning.
>
> Except what you're talking about here is premature *optimzation*.
Yes, indeed.
Cheers,
Mich
There is also such thing as premature "pessimization". I'm not in the
position to judge whether it is appropriate in this case, though.
Back-to-reading-mode-ly yours,
Michael
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:59:39 +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I've been trying a lot to implement a Lua compiler (version 5), but I'm
> seriously stuck on generating code for assignments (it's not as simple
> as it seems, but then again, I may be thinking in the wrong direction;
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:19:01 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which gives me an evil idea. We could allow bytecode to specify that
> it wanted to start taking full continuations everywhere, but that
> these would never be used below it on the callstack. Thus the regex
> engine coul
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:59:06 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Above is *without* tail calls. The next one was with tail calls, and it
> obviously did succeed, because tail calls do not contribute to any kind
> of stack depth. So there is for sure no limit. It's the same as an
> i
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:30:16 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tail calls should be explicit, compile-time things. Otherwise we're
> going to run afoul of traceback requirements and suchlike things, and
> I think that's just not worth the risk and hassle. Besides, it's a
> lot easier
Scheme is a counterexample, it supports both mandatory tail calls &
continuations.
I've no idea how stuff is implemented in Parrot, but an obvious idea
would be to have some kind of lazy copying scheme (i.e. maintain a
reference count for the stack frames & copy the respective one before
mutating
I sense confusion between "closure", "continuation" and "coroutine".
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContinuationExplanation
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContinuationsAndCoroutines
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CoRoutine
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LexicalClosure
Cheers,
Michael
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:11:07 +0100, Klaas-
gensym, hehe. History repeats ;-)
- Michael
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:49:22 -0400, William Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A macro example in the docs shows:
>
> .macro swap (A,B,TEMP) # . marks the directive
> set .TEMP,.A # . marks the special variable.
> set .A,.B
> se
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/programming/metaclasses.pdf
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:45:50 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, color me officially confused. I'm working on the assumption
> that metaclasses are needed, but I don't, as yet, understand them.
> So, with this bit of
19 matches
Mail list logo
