Even better! I jumped the gun! Never Mind! Nothing to see Here!
Thanks again!
On Oct 4, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
This is *great* and I've already started converting partcl to take
advantage.
One problem I've discovered:
operators["<<"] = OPERATOR_SHL
This is probably becaus
This is *great* and I've already started converting partcl to take
advantage.
One problem I've discovered:
operators["<<"] = OPERATOR_SHL
This is probably because:
<*>"<<"{STRINGCONSTANT} {
Is too permissive. Can we perhaps just allow {ID}s ?
Thanks again! This is great! Woo!
On Oct 4,
Melvin wrote:
>
> Parrot need's its own version of "C" or "C#" to empower more people
> to contribute. If every new feature for Parrot is thought of in
> terms of PIR & IMCC, then IMCC will just become more of a tangled
> mess that nobody wants to touch, and high-level development will
> continue
At 11:48 AM 2/25/2005, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
MrJoltCola wrote:
At 03:21 AM 2/25/2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
MrJoltCola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that this feature is for higher level languages.
[ snip ]
> ... PIR is for compilers, not people,
My impression was that the target for c
MrJoltCola wrote:
At 03:21 AM 2/25/2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
MrJoltCola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that this feature is for higher level languages.
[ snip ]
> ... PIR is for compilers, not people,
My impression was that the target for compilers should be a yet
non-existent abstract syn
At 03:21 AM 2/25/2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
MrJoltCola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that this feature is for higher level languages.
[ snip ]
> ... PIR is for compilers, not people,
PIR is foremost Parrot's primary assembly language. If it were for
compiles only, it wouldn't have needed "a
MrJoltCola wrote:
> This should actually be titled "Where are all the compilers?"
The compilers will come! Loads of people, myself included, are quietly
working away on compilers that target IMC.
It takes time for people to discover and adopt new platforms -
especially when you are so modest abou
MrJoltCola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel that this feature is for higher level languages.
[ snip ]
> ... PIR is for compilers, not people,
PIR is foremost Parrot's primary assembly language. If it were for
compiles only, it wouldn't have needed "a = b + c" in the first place,
the "add" op
Bernhard Schmalhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> in the near, or far, future there will be test scripts and compiler
> input in PIR. For that it would be nice, if long text doesn't have to
> be crammed into a single line.
> So some kind of HERE document syntax is needed for PIR. Suggesti
This should actually be titled "Where are all the compilers?"
-
I haven't ranted in a couple of years, so I'm due. Ranting is
nothing more than broadcasting my emotions from a soapbox
but it is so fun, I love to do it.
Let me respectfully give my opinion. In no way am I criticizing your
suggest
10 matches
Mail list logo
