On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:53:46 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
>Damians".
>http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html
I just hope that you don't really have to insert that many blank lines
in your code just to make it c
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "GG" == Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GG> Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not
> GG> Just For Damians".
>
> GG> If the hair on the back of your neck rises when thinking about
> GG> Perl 6, or even
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:53:46 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>>Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
>>Damians".
>
>>http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html
>
> I just hope that you don't really have to inser
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 04:53:46PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: "Perl 6 : Not Just For
> Damians".
I had missed what unary . really did, and this explained it to me. I'm
now much more excited about it as a "with"-like operator.
It does make me
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> It does make me think, though... Would it make sense to have an
> accessor operator? For example, in Perl5 I would do this:
>
> sub foo {
> my $self = shift;
> my $old = $self->{foo};
>
Scott wrote:
> Actually, I think it becomes:
>
>sub foo is method {
> my $old = .foo;
> .foo = shift if @_;
> return $old;
>}
>
> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
Well, I'm not a Damian, but I play one on perl6-l
Damian Conway:
# Scott wrote:
#
#> Actually, I think it becomes:
#>
#> sub foo is method {
#> my $old = .foo;
#> .foo = shift if @_;
#> return $old;
#> }
#>
#> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
#
# Well, I'm not a Damian,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 08:09:57AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry has ideas, I have ideas...
All good so far ;-)
> However, I don't think the above syntax will be it. I think it would likely
> be closer to:
>
> class Demo {
>
> my $.foo;
>
> method foo {
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> It does make me think, though... Would it make sense to have an
>> accessor operator? For example, in Perl5 I would do this:
>>
>> sub foo {
>> my $self = shift;
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 03:28:57PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if we have an instance variable $foo and a global $foo, and we want
> to access the global?
Do you mean if we've hidden a lexical of the same name in the same
scope? I seem to recall something related to %MY that would let you
acce
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:53:09PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:13:42PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > In Perl6 with the unary ., that becomes:
> >
> > sub .foo (*@args) {
> > my $old = $.{foo};
> > # So $obj.foo(undef) will work
> >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 01:53:09PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Actually, I think it becomes:
>
> sub foo is method {
> my $old = .foo;
> .foo = shift if @_;
> return $old;
> }
>
> But, I could be wrong. Any Damians care to enlighten? :-)
I'm not
dan i have have been talking about the decimal math package for
bigint/bigfloat. i have some ideas and am looking for some of you to
work with me on this.
my idea is to use an old hardware trick called excess-3 to efficiently
do decimal adds/subtracts in word sized chunks. this is much faster th
Okay, here are the conventions.
*) The callee is responsible for saving and restoring non-scratch registers
*) The first five registers (I0-I4, S0-S4, P0-P4, N0-N4) are scratch and do
not have to be preserved by the callee
*) In *ALL* cases where the stack is used, things are put on the stack in
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here are the conventions.
Great. Anyone want to offer up some examples or should I just wait for
Jako support to see this in action?
-sam
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do c
Sam Tregar:
# On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my
# optimizer (or
# > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
#
# Actually,
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
# >On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to
# my optimizer (or
# >
Brian Wheeler:
# I've got a dumb question, and its probably because I've not
# been paying
# attention, so I apologise in advance.
#
# How does a program access more than 32 variables simultaneously? In
# real CPU architectures you've got main memory storage, but
# here we only
# have registers.
At 08:32 AM 10/26/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># More importantly, the answer to the preceeding question can be "Yes".
>
>So why don't we wait until we decide we don't have enough opcodes?
>Smells like premature optimization to me.
Note the answer was "can be", not "will be"...
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
You don't have to
At 10:28 AM 10/26/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> >
> > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer
We now have separate control and save stacks. saves and restores will *not*
affect subroutine calls, nor scope entries, lexical locks, or exception
handlers.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 01:32, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
> >
> > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> > method "forgot" the last variant,
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
Actually, a really lazy compiler will
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> With the patch attached, all tests pass on Win32.
>
This also gets MIPSPro working (although there continue to be lots of
warnings). We need to alter the build system to run genclass.pl (or
run it to remake the version of intclass.c which cvs gives out).
If I might make a very small suggestion, for clarity's sake you might want to consider
renaming your opcodes push_e and pop_e, or
push_x and pop_x. I don't know if this violates any naming conventions you already
have in place, however.
-Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Jeff [mailto:[
Tom Hughes:
# In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#
# > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
# >
# > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are
# handled. The old
# > method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
# > gen
29 matches
Mail list logo
