Re: Parrot 0.1.0 still?

2004-09-10 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Joshua Gatcomb wrote: We haven't had a new release since Feb 29th. Yep. The Plan was to do a release in June. Pie-thon did interfer. Since the usual purpose of a point release is to have features finished and bugs squashed, it may be a good time for another release. I'd say in a month or so. leo

Parrot 0.1.0 still?

2004-09-09 Thread Joshua Gatcomb
We haven't had a new release since Feb 29th. >From what I have seen from the various on-line forums, newcomers aren't aware of the progress since then. The latest round of "discussion" appears to have resulted in the following guidelines from our fearless leader: 1. Divorce internals from inter

[perl #27814] Perl6 Syntax - parrot-0.1.0 - array definition bug

2004-03-22 Thread Graciliano M. P.
= ('a' , 'b' , 'c') ; ## this is ok. @l = (1 , 2 ) ; ## this is ok. @l = (2) ; ## this is NOT ok. Soo, when setting an array with ONE value doesn't work! Also we can't set HASHes yet! I think that now is time to add syntax to Perl6, since parrot has resourc

Re: Debian on parisc: Parrot 0.1.0 fails

2004-03-04 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> $ cat myconfig Nothing special here AFAIK. > spe170> gdb parrot When it hangs: - run parrot in one console - open a 2nd console - get the pid(s) of parrot $ ps -C parrot - start debugger $ gdb parrot $ bt > Breakpoint 1, pmc_init_null (inter

Re: Debian on parisc: Parrot 0.1.0 fails

2004-03-04 Thread Daniel Grunblatt
loop, I could not find out exactly what is the problem but I > > think it's related to threads. > > It's Debian 3.0 on parisc using gcc 3.0.4 > > Any idea how to solve it? > > Provide more informatiion? > > $ cat myconfig Summary of my parrot 0.1.0 configurat

Re: Debian on parisc: Parrot 0.1.0 fails

2004-03-03 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When updating the old version I had at the TD machine to the current cvs > version I realize that it fails right after start running, entering in an > eternal loop, I could not find out exactly what is the problem but I think > it's related to threads.

Debian on parisc: Parrot 0.1.0 fails

2004-03-03 Thread Daniel Grunblatt
When updating the old version I had at the TD machine to the current cvs version I realize that it fails right after start running, entering in an eternal loop, I could not find out exactly what is the problem but I think it's related to threads. It's Debian 3.0 on parisc using gcc 3.0.4 Any ide

Parrot 0.1.0 Released

2004-02-29 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Parrot 0.1.0 "Leaping Kakapo" Released! The Parrot team proudly presents the Parrot 0.1.0 leap release. It provides some milestones like objects and multi-threading1[1] and supports many more platforms. After some pause you can grab it from <http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/L/LT/LT

Re: Parrot 0.1.0 -- what's left?

2003-08-19 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Allow .macro in imcc, for when we're parsing pir code. This is already enabled. > Macro-ize the stub functions in default.pmc, so that throwing an > exception takes one line of C code. Yep. And autogenerate these from vtable.tbl if default.pmc has

Re: Parrot 0.1.0 -- what's left?

2003-08-18 Thread Benjamin Goldberg
Steve Fink wrote: > > In light of the insane amount of work that's gone into Parrot > recently, I'd say it's about time to cut another release. What else > would people like to slip in? This is not a freeze announcement yet -- > I want to know what people think of the state of things they're > wor

Re: Parrot 0.1.0 -- what's left?

2003-08-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
r the version number -- Dan, if it's ok with you, I'd like to > call this 0.1. Leo's got some form of exceptions in, which was the > stated gate to 0.1, and with the EXEC stuff and a real live Python > port, it seems to me that it's more than earned the name. 0.1.0 sounds right for me. leo

Re: Parrot 0.1.0 -- what's left?

2003-08-14 Thread Luke Palmer
Steve Fink writes: > In light of the insane amount of work that's gone into Parrot > recently, I'd say it's about time to cut another release. What else > would people like to slip in? This is not a freeze announcement yet -- > I want to know what people think of the state of things they're > worki

Parrot 0.1.0 -- what's left?

2003-08-14 Thread Steve Fink
In light of the insane amount of work that's gone into Parrot recently, I'd say it's about time to cut another release. What else would people like to slip in? This is not a freeze announcement yet -- I want to know what people think of the state of things they're working on first. As for the vers

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-26 Thread Steve Fink
On Feb-25, Leon Brocard wrote: > David sent the following bits through the ether: > > > Thanks. I better upgrade my version, I'm not seeing it in 0.0.9. > > It's been a while since 0.0.9 (errr, 20th Dec). A lot has changed > since then. Maybe it's time for

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Piers Cawley
Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And even toy languages may benefit from objects (yes, I really need > objects in order to implement -98 version of Befunge, especially > since I want to include concurrent-funge support). Well, I could use > my own hand-crafted objects as a list of whatev

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Leon Brocard
Dan Sugalski sent the following bits through the ether: > While I'll call C many things (not all of them repeatable) I'm not > sure "toy" is one of them. Nor Forth, Fortran, APL, COBOL, Lisp, or > Basic... :) Granted, but those aren't the languages we're interested in. Parrot is for dynamic lan

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 4:52 PM + 2/25/03, Leon Brocard wrote: David sent the following bits through the ether: Thanks. I better upgrade my version, I'm not seeing it in 0.0.9. It's been a while since 0.0.9 (errr, 20th Dec). A lot has changed since then. Maybe it's time for a 0.1.0 release. What

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Simon Glover
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jerome Quelin wrote: > I want to include concurrent-funge support. I'm not even going to ask :-) Simon

Re: 0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Jerome Quelin
Leon Brocard wrote: > It's been a while since 0.0.9 (errr, 20th Dec). A lot has changed > since then. Maybe it's time for a 0.1.0 release. What are we waiting > for? Dan said: "either exceptions or objects". Once we have one, we'll go to 0.1.0, and when the

0.1.0

2003-02-25 Thread Leon Brocard
David sent the following bits through the ether: > Thanks. I better upgrade my version, I'm not seeing it in 0.0.9. It's been a while since 0.0.9 (errr, 20th Dec). A lot has changed since then. Maybe it's time for a 0.1.0 release. What are we waiting for? And why do we ha

Re: [perl #19331] [PATCH]befunge 0.1.0 released

2002-12-21 Thread Dan Sugalski
my versioning scheme, so this is now befunge 0.1.0 (instead of 0.07 - yes, I also went for a traditional open-source versioning system) Applied, thanks. -- Dan --"it's like this"-

[perl #19331] [PATCH]befunge 0.1.0 released

2002-12-21 Thread via RT
nge interpreter now uses a list of lists (perlarray of perlarrays to be more precise) instead of a list of strings. I thought this big evolution needed a gap in my versioning scheme, so this is now befunge 0.1.0 (instead of 0.07 - yes, I also went for a traditional open-source versioning sys