> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 03:22 PM 8/18/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> i didn't see any references to support debugging an external perl
>> process. this should be designed in from the beginning, so the debugger
>> API can be designed to work locally
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 04:38 PM 8/8/2001 +, Brian J. Kifiak wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately all the references I have for alternatives really
> > > > require what the Dragon Book teaches as a foundation.
> > >
> > > What are the refer
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Ken Fox wrote:
> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > DS> At 03:22 PM 8/18/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > >> i didn't see any references to support debugging an external perl
> > >> process. ...
> >
>
# -Original Message-
# From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 10:59 AM
# To: Dan Sugalski
# Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Subject: Re: Something to hash out
#
#
# On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:37:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# > I'm currently thinking of
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DS> At 03:22 PM 8/18/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> i didn't see any references to support debugging an external perl
> >> process. ...
>
> DS> Good point. ... listen on some port/pipe/do
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > I think closures are a lot harder (or at least subtler) than
> > > people think ...
> >
> > ... The scenario you gave seems rather far-fetched to me, in terms
> > of real-world program
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:38 PM 8/8/2001 +, Brian J. Kifiak wrote:
> > > Unfortunately all the references I have for alternatives really
> > > require what the Dragon Book teaches as a foundation.
> >
> > What are the references?
>
> ... Advanced Compiler Design & Implem
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > I think closures are a lot harder (or at least subtler) than
> > > people think ...
> >
> > ... The scenario you gave seems rather far-fetched to me, in terms
> > of real-world program
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > I think closures are a lot harder (or at least subtler) than
> > > people think ...
> >
> > ... The scenario you gave seems rather far-fetched to me, in terms
> > of real-world program
Simon Cozens writes:
> I was using .pas and .pac. Gotta think about 8.3ness, unfortunately.
.pas is generally Pascal.
I also think it's important we choose extensions based around their
humour potential. With that in mind, I propose:
.par for Parrot source, and .pao for Parrot Objects would
We're about to have a tarball of basic interpreter source (no compiler
yet, only an assembler). Dan's already run into portability problems,
and once it comes out we're going to need to start working on the
configuration and build system.
Jarkko, are you still interested in leading this? (I'm un
11 matches
Mail list logo