>: =item * Comments
>:
>: We've already gone over this, but it'd be good to have the ability for
>: parsers to (somehow) "feed" into one another, [...]
>
>... I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for
>Perl 6 to support strings with embedded objects as funny characters.
>In the limit
OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've
got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they
just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go.
Here's the page I'm looking at:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html
And here are my questions. Or,
Well, I may be shy, and I may lurk, but I'm willing and
able to contribute. I've coded C professionally, on and
off, since 1992, and I like to tinker with things, and
I'm not too terrible at documentation.
I think a good place to start digging in would be updating
docs, though I can be turned to
Harry Jackson wrote:
>
> I think that there are a lot of people who would help but the learning
> curve seems too high. I for one am finding it a pretty steep curve at the
> moment and am always worried about making an ass of myself when posting.
> I decided to hell with it, if you're ain't in y
>Voting for myself for having the most consecutive posts with bad grammar.
>
>-Melvin
This may be the wrong forum to post this, but it has to
be said: the combination of humility, professionalism,
and competence in the developers of Parrot is amazing.
It is very refreshing and encouraging.
Quoth Melvin Smith:
>It be a bit friendlier to make the scope resolution operator something
>that at least 1 or 2 languages use as their own already; then all the rest
>still have to mangle.
Uh oh, time to vote?
Jeff wrote:
>How are we going to get people to write recursive subroutines if we have
>a factorial operator? :)
>
[snip]
sub offTopic
{
Have you seen Arc's factorial? The "short way" is really weird:
(rec zero 1 * 1-)
But then, the long way is still a bit odd to me, a non-LISPer
Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 12:13, Andy Wardley wrote:
> >
> > http://andywardley.com/parrot/
> Critics:
>
> 2. Aren't parrots more flashy?
Good point -- maybe the logo ought to have bright red,
solid green, and lovely blues. But then, I like primary
Ok, I'm impatient. Forgive me for saying:
At what point could Perl6 development begin?
I know, Larry's not done with his Pocky-plickses, and Parrot is
but an infant.
But surely some bits of perl can be strung soon? Will there
be perl development in parallel with parrot development?
Rob
--
Drâ
> >If people have different opinions on intermediate code generation [...]
>
> I have been working in a compiler for an intermediate language that I call
> P-- (obviously inspired in C--) for now. [...]
I find it encouraging and exciting that people are already building
useful middlecode on top o
10 matches
Mail list logo
