From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:11:23 -0800
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 06:55:24PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
: [2] About two-thirds of the way through A06 (search for "temporize
: object attributes"), Larry says that this will be done via
: clo
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 06:55:24PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
: [2] About two-thirds of the way through A06 (search for "temporize
: object attributes"), Larry says that this will be done via
: closures. In order to support rezipping, such a closure would need
: to accept a new value
Table of contents
1. Deep binding is not appropriate.
2. Outline of a shallow-binding solution.
3. Unbinding must work with a general stack-unwinding mechanism.
4. Conclusion (not).
1. Deep binding is not appropriate.
It has always been clear that a "save/modify/restore"
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:17:39 +0100
On Dec 30, 2005, at 17:50, Bob Rogers wrote:
>The attached patch is functionally complete, but I still have a few
> loose ends to nail down, so I thought it would be a good time to post
> it
On Dec 30, 2005, at 17:50, Bob Rogers wrote:
The attached patch is functionally complete, but I still have a few
loose ends to nail down, so I thought it would be a good time to post
it
for review. The issues are as follows:
1. It needs more higher-level documentation. Is compiler_f
The attached patch is functionally complete, but I still have a few
loose ends to nail down, so I thought it would be a good time to post it
for review. The issues are as follows:
1. It needs more higher-level documentation. Is compiler_faq.pod
the best place for this?
2. Binding 'fo
