On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 05:42:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:24 PM +0100 8/1/02, Graham Barr wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:11:27PM -0700, Stephen Rawls wrote:
> >> > It should pass them on to the PMC directly, which
> >> > should then handle them properly.
> >>
> >> So, if ix <
At 2:54 PM -0700 8/1/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> No, I don't think this is appropriate. The PerlArray class implements
>> Perl arrays, and should implement their semantics.
>
>It implements Perl 6 arrays, though. If it's a useful semantic extension
>(res
At 10:24 PM +0100 8/1/02, Graham Barr wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:11:27PM -0700, Stephen Rawls wrote:
>> > It should pass them on to the PMC directly, which
>> > should then handle them properly.
>>
>> So, if ix < -SELF->cache.int_val then the code tries
>> to use a negative value to a
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
> No, I don't think this is appropriate. The PerlArray
> class implements
> Perl arrays, and should implement their semantics.
Let me rephrase again :) What should the semantics
for Perl arrays be?
cheers,
Stephen Rawls
___
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> No, I don't think this is appropriate. The PerlArray class implements
> Perl arrays, and should implement their semantics.
It implements Perl 6 arrays, though. If it's a useful semantic extension
(restrictions are another matter), I don't see why "perl 5
At 2:32 PM -0700 8/1/02, Stephen Rawls wrote:
>--- Sean O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Let me rephrase. How should the PerlArray pmc
>> > handle negative indecis when the absolute value of
>> > the index is greater than the size of the array.
>>
>> IMHO it would be most consistent w
--- Sean O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me rephrase. How should the PerlArray pmc
> > handle negative indecis when the absolute value of
> > the index is greater than the size of the array.
>
> IMHO it would be most consistent with the way
> autovivification of positive indices work
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:11:27PM -0700, Stephen Rawls wrote:
> > It should pass them on to the PMC directly, which
> > should then handle them properly.
>
> So, if ix < -SELF->cache.int_val then the code tries
> to use a negative value to access the array element in
> the C code. This is obvi
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Stephen Rawls wrote:
> > It should pass them on to the PMC directly, which
> > should then handle them properly.
>
> Let me rephrase. How should the PerlArray pmc handle
> negative indecis when the absolute value of the index
> is greater than the size of the array.
IMHO it
> It should pass them on to the PMC directly, which
> should then handle them properly.
Let me rephrase. How should the PerlArray pmc handle
negative indecis when the absolute value of the index
is greater than the size of the array. Here are some
examples:
#first set up an array
new P0, .Per
At 6:46 AM -0700 8/1/02, Stephen Rawls wrote:
>In working on the Tuple pmc (almost done!) I've come
>accross a small semantic problem. I suppose this
>might be language level (and thus Larry's turf?), but
>how should the VM handle negative indecis?
It should pass them on to the PMC directly, whi
--- Aldo Calpini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there should also be no need to check for
> syntactic sugar like negative indices.
True, I suppose if a language REALLY wanted this, it
could be implemented on the interpreter level.
Also of note, instead of having TUPLE1 + TUPLE2 act as
arrays, and
Stephen Rawls wrote:
> since I want the Tuple pmc to do the same thing in
> this respect as the PerlArray pmc.
just my opinion, but I don't want this. it would be
PerlTuple then. let's keep this stuff at a higher level.
the only and one reason I see because one would implement
tuples instead of
13 matches
Mail list logo
