"Clinton A. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most of the discussion in p6i goes right over my head, but I'm
> certainly enjoying the fruits of their labors.
Huge amounts of it go over my head too, which means I'm never *quite*
sure whether I've got the salient points in my summaries.
--
Pie
At 08:07 PM 8/21/2002 +0100, Ximon Eighteen wrote:
> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
> Personally I've been a little disappointed
> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>
> -Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time & expe
Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >So please, first, let's consider the status quo, not the future.
>
> Agree.
>
> >_SV_s1 = clone $P1
>
> I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
> What do you think?
No change
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Well, Sean's not quite sure about that. I agree with Melvin that using
> PASM syntax for IMCC could make it harder to target other platforms.
I don't know Melvin's plan for other targets - but - as parrot is very
special
'John Porter' wrote:
> Brent Dax wrote:
> No; but statements like "imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's
> (still very dynamic) feature set" and discussions of imcc syntax
> naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project.
> E.g. "will the perl6 compiler target imcc?"
T
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Mark Koopman wrote:
> > I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
> > myself. I only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Keep up the good work.
Lurker honk, agreement. :)
R.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
> >discussions public?
I'd like to dispel rumors of a vast off-list conspiracy. I've been taking
and discussing patches to languages/perl6 from a couple of people (hi,
Leo) off-list,
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Melvin Smith wrote:
> > I still prefer infix notation to prefix notation for an intermediate
> > language.
>
> The current infix notation is fine. It makes intermediate code, and
> perl6 IMCC code generation more readable.
>
> Sean (IMHO) is not trying
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >_SV_s1 = clone $P1
>
> I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
> What do you think?
Heh. What's the universal sign for "assign" (as opposed to "clone" or
"set
At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>So please, first, let's consider the status quo, not the future.
Agree.
>_SV_s1 = clone $P1
I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
What do you think?
-Melvin
Brent Dax wrote:
> John Porter:
> # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot
> # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level
> # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I
>
> Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Pa
John Porter:
# languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot
# must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level
# languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I
Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot
features, therefore IMCC
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > I don't understand why it is so hard to adopt. imcc is supposed to be
> > a step closer to higher level languages, which is why I went that way.
>
> No problem here, it is called _intermediate_ ..., which is a worthful
> step in code generation, but - as always - there
Melvin Smith wrote:
> Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear other opinions than
> mine, yours, Angel's and Leopold's.
I'll answer here to Melvin's mail, but I'll try to make a summary of all
point's taken in this thread + some more.
> I still prefer infix notation to prefix no
> c) imcc becomes a "middle" level language.
> I never meant it to be an assembler. In practice
> intermediate languages provide other constructs
> such as aggregate type definition that are not
> available in the assembler.
>
> type i : packed int[32]
> type r : record { foo : int, bar : string }
At 2:35 PM -0400 8/21/02, John Porter wrote:
>Angel Faus wrote:
>> I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
>> compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
>
>I wonder if maybe perl6-internals should have been named parrot, anyway.
That would've required a bit of time-travel
>> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
>> Personally I've been a little disappointed
>> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>>
>> -Melvin
>
> I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
> myself. I only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to
> contribute.
>
> You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
> Personally I've been a little disappointed
> in the involvement(interest) of late.
>
> -Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to contribute.
Keep up the
Angel Faus wrote:
> I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
> compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
I wonder if maybe perl6-internals should have been named parrot, anyway.
By being less overtly perl-centric, and thus more HLL-neutral, we could
have gotten more direc
At 8:05 PM +0200 8/21/02, Angel Faus wrote:
> >
>> Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
>> time someone suggested making a separate
>> list for Parrot compilers, so I took it as
>> a hint that maybe we were spamming.
>>
>
>I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and
>
> Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
> time someone suggested making a separate
> list for Parrot compilers, so I took it as
> a hint that maybe we were spamming.
>
I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
So people interes
>Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
>discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6 are very major
>components, and they have been very little discussed on-list. imcc
Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
time someone suggested making a separate
list for Pa
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:05:57AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
>
> Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear other opinions than
> mine, yours, Angel's and Leopold's.
Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:02:51 +0200 Angel Faus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think we all agree that since parrot can have dynamic oplibs (and core
>parrot has hundreds of ops), imcc needs some way to directly express them.
>The idea of having parrot ops be included as such, and imcc directives
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> About the implementation, I think we will need the following metadata about
> each op:
>
> i) the opcode, and the op name.
> ii) the type of arguments, including in/out/etc..
Both of these are available, though there currently isn't an efficient
interface
> I still prefer infix notation to prefix notation for an intermediate
> language. I don't understand why it is so hard to adopt. imcc is supposed
> to be a step closer to higher level languages, which is why I went that
> way.
Hi,
I think we all agree that since parrot can have dynamic oplibs
Replying to myself because I forgot to include these files...
/s
anyop.tgz
Description: Binary data
At 09:49 PM 8/20/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>This is what you'll need. It uses dlopen(), and is likely Bad in a number
>of other ways, but if you're on a fairly normal UNIX, it should allow imcc
>to grok what P6C produces for regexes.
Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear ot
28 matches
Mail list logo
