thanks, applied as r14674.
~jerry
e_coda.t that reside under parrot/compilers to add the
required emacs and vim coda. This patch partially adresses bug:
#40279 [CAGE] C coding standards coda. The files affected are listed
below.
Regards,
Paul
Files affected:
compilers/ast/astparser.c
compilers/ast/node.c
compilers/ast/astlexe
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
> and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
> progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
>
> I propose creating 'parrot-compilers'
Sterling Hughes wrote:
The reason I think parrot-compilers would be useful, is that its
dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
development of the vm itself (I would subscribe to both). I see
parrot
On Nov 18, 2003, at 9:07 AM, Sterling Hughes wrote:
The reason I think parrot-compilers would be useful, is that its
dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
development of the vm itself (I would
The reason I think parrot-compilers would be useful, is that its
dedicated to helping people (like me) write compilers for parrot,
whereas (in my understanding), perl6-internals@ is really about the
development of the vm itself (I would subscribe to both). I see
parrot-compilers@ as opening
ical mass).
> >
> > I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> > purpose list for any and all language development
> ...
>
> So I'll be one of the few nay-sayers. I'm not definitely against it,
> but here are two counter-arguments:
>
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Melvin Smith wrote:
In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
purpose l
At 01:50 PM 11/18/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> purpose list for any and all language development
As long as traffic on p6i is as low as current, I don't see the
--- Begin Message ---
I
Think this would be cool, and I will help.
my research masters is retargetting gcj to parrot.
I am only a month into it so I have not put up a project page yet.
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 00:04, Joseph Ryan wrote:
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:35:51 -08
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
> purpose list for any and all language development
As long as traffic on p6i is as low as current, I don't see the need for
another list.
> -Melvin
leo
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:58:17PM +, Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> >I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
>
> What he said.
>
> Pete
idem
--
stef
Pete Lomax wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:35:51 -0800, Sterling Hughes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
What he said.
Ditto.
- Joe
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:35:51 -0800, Sterling Hughes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think this would be a *very* cool thing.
What he said.
Pete
Pete
http://palacebuilders.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/euphoria.html
Melvin Smith wrote:
In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
purpose list for any and all language dev
In the past couple of years we've seen several sub-projects pop-up
and subsequently fizzle out (maybe due to Parrot slow
progress or maybe due to lack of critical mass).
I propose creating 'parrot-compilers' as a general
purpose list for any and all language development
(until an a
At 7:10 PM -0700 1/17/03, Cory Spencer wrote:
Hey folks -
In my wanders through the parrot/languages subdirectories, it appears that
most example languages implement a complete compiler (ie lexxer -> parser
-> optimizer -> code emitter), which seems to be somewhat of a
duplication of labour.
IM
At 10:39 AM 1/18/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Jako compiler uses imcc as well...
While we are plugging...
and Cola too :)
-Melvin
quot;Cory Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Parrot compilers
Yes, languages should now use IMCC as their target. Basically, they
generate IMCC instructions without regards for optimization and such so
that
only a lexer/parse
The Jako compiler uses imcc as well...
"Tanton Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/18/2003 01:10 AM
To: "Cory Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: Parrot compilers
Yes, languages should no
If memory serves me right, Cory Spencer wrote:
> most example languages implement a complete compiler (ie lexxer -> parser
> -> optimizer -> code emitter), which seems to be somewhat of a
> duplication of labour.
Some are in C, others in pasm and yet others in Perl ... how do do you re-use
libr
Message -
From: "Cory Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: Parrot compilers
>
> Hey folks -
>
> In my wanders through the parrot/languages subdirectories, it appears that
> most example langua
Hey folks -
In my wanders through the parrot/languages subdirectories, it appears that
most example languages implement a complete compiler (ie lexxer -> parser
-> optimizer -> code emitter), which seems to be somewhat of a
duplication of labour. Has or is anyone worked on a framework a la gcc
w
23 matches
Mail list logo
