OK, here is a new implementation of the same idea.
Also, here is a more explicit set of instructions.
To install:
rm -r platforms
untar the attached tarball in the main parrot dir.
To use:
run Configure.pl, then run GuessConfig. (Merging them is on the todo list.)
run make test.
Go home happy.
ason Gloudon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 02:22:44PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > > * Is there ever any need to for a PMC type which holds both an int and
> > > > a
> > > > num? In the Perl 5 c
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm saying that classes can have user-defined flags, to save a
> >dereference. Or at least, I'm saying that until Dan wanders over
> >here and persuades me it's a bad idea. :)
>
> Dan thinks its a very good idea. :) Almost anything that potentially saves
> "John" == John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> 1) Methods are always public
John> 2) Variables are always private (and in this case that means that other
John> instances may not view the instance variables of an object; I don't
John> recall whether the class can see the ivars of its
Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
at the conference. What happened? I'm really curious
about the "Worse is Better" panel and the talk that
Dan and Simon gave.
- Ken
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, James Mastros wrote:
> OK, here is a new implementation of the same idea.
>
> Also, here is a more explicit set of instructions.
>
> To install:
> rm -r platforms
> untar the attached tarball in the main parrot dir.
>
> To use:
> run Configure.pl, then run GuessConfig. (M
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:58:55AM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Presumably we should have a small, *fixed* number of private bits in
> the flags word available for use by vtable implementors (ie to stop
> people getting carried away with the notion that they can steal any
> bits which do not othe
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:44:41AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
> at the conference.
Oh, be fair, I've only just got off a plane. :)
Article coming on perl.com this Wednesday or so.
--
In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ... the de
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:58:55AM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > Presumably we should have a small, *fixed* number of private bits in
> > the flags word available for use by vtable implementors (ie to stop
> > people getting carried away with the notion
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:17:31PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Oh, be fair, I've only just got off a plane. :)
Executive summary:
Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
Us: Yes, but your solutions are unpublished, unadvertised, imp
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:29:00PM +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> I'd prefer the "you have 8 private bits, the rest is Parrot's" approach
> rather than the "Parrot has 8 bits and the rest is yours for now, we'll
> let you know when we want to grab some more back off you" approach. I think
> that wa
At 09:44 AM 11/19/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Can't find any articles or notes on what happened
>at the conference.
Video should be up on Dr. Dobb's Journal's website at some point.
www.ddj.com. Links up on the workshop site at http://ll1.mit.edu soon, I
hope. Things did just happen this weeken
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
> Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
of re-inventing the wheel? Or is this just the academic
distaste for Perl syntax showing through? I had hoped tha
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:55:50AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
> Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
> of re-inventing the wheel?
Yes.
> Or is this just the academic distaste for Perl syntax showing through?
Don't forget that Python doesn't have a formally-defined language
spec
At 11:55 AM 11/19/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Us: We're working on this, that and the other.
> > Them: Pshaw. We solved those problems thirty years ago.
>
>Were Perl and Python both grouped into the same category
>of re-inventing the wheel?
More or less. Oddly enough, for
On 11/19/01 12:25 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Python's got a good shot at things, as it seems to be the 'dirty little
> secret' of the academic world--it's the practical language people admit to
> using when they're actually doing something.
Sounds familiar...
> I've reasonably good hope for Ruby,
> Are there any cases where a void * cannot be placed into an integer
> register? It seems like it shouldn't happen, especially since jump and
> jsr are supposed to take an integer register and they point to a
> host-machine-address...
What register are you talking about? The 16-bit x86 has 16-b
At 12:35 PM 11/19/2001 -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
>On 11/19/01 12:25 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> Or is this just the academic distaste for Perl syntax showing through?
> >
> > Sort of.
>
>How "academics" can dislike Perl's syntax aesthetics and yet like
>Smalltalk's is beyond me.
Wrong crowd. W
At 03:29 PM 11/19/2001 +, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Hmmm - of course, once Parrot is out there in the wild with the equivalent
>of XS vtables, we won't have the luxury of recompiling.
Then we'll need to abstract that out somehow so we can do it if we need to...
At 03:17 PM 11/16/2001 -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>I like the idea of splitting out some things (such as dynaloading) into
>separate directories, instead of a single monolithic platform.c file.
>Whether *every* non-portable function needs its own directory is a
>different question. I suspect no
On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 12:43, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > Are there any cases where a void * cannot be placed into an integer
> > register? It seems like it shouldn't happen, especially since jump and
> > jsr are supposed to take an integer register and they point to a
> > host-machine-address...
>
> W
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 03:17 PM 11/16/2001 -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >I like the idea of splitting out some things (such as dynaloading) into
> >separate directories, instead of a single monolithic platform.c file.
> >Whether *every* non-portable function needs its own
> Dan wrote:
> I've reasonably good hope for Ruby, too, but nobody seemed to have heard
of
> it. That's hopefully changed. (I made a point of mentioning it, as it is a
> really nice language and one of our targets)
Yes, I discovered it a year ago and fell in love with the language, now what
it
nee
Where I studied, they liked ML (objective caml actually) and prolog...
Benoit
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Perl 6 Internals" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: What happened at little language
Okay, I've finally gotten the OS disks for the PowerMac that Grant kicked
in to the development effort, and we should have an OS X system up and
ready to build parrot on.
Anyone familiar with setting up Tinderbox under OS X, or Tinderbox clients
in general, want to pitch in a bit and help me g
At 09:29 PM 11/19/2001 +0100, Benoit Cerrina wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
> > I've reasonably good hope for Ruby, too, but nobody seemed to have heard
>of
> > it. That's hopefully changed. (I made a point of mentioning it, as it is a
> > really nice language and one of our targets)
>Yes, I discovered it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > There is. You can't necessarily convert on the fly - perl5 allows
> > dual-typed SVs where the string and number aren't necessarily
> > interchangable versions of each other.
>
> Ahem, I was asking about int and num, not num and string :-)
Oops - so you were. Soz!
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Are there any cases where a void * cannot be placed into an integer
> > register? It seems like it shouldn't happen, especially since jump and
> > jsr are supposed to take an integer register and they point to a
> > host-machine-address...
Yes, all platforms that s
Hey all.
In parellel to splitting out features (yeah, I like that better then
"platforms" too) (which is going well this time, I think (I'm being a lot
better about checking against clean checkouts, but having problems
thinking of a good generic interface for open() and friends), I'm thinking
ab
I am familiar with both being an OS X user and the tinderbox client author
and would be happy to help in any way needed.
Zach
On 11/19/01 2:11 PM, "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I've finally gotten the OS disks for the PowerMac that Grant kicked
> in to the development effort
On Mon, 2001-11-19 at 19:59, James Mastros wrote:
> Hey all.
> In parellel to splitting out features (yeah, I like that better then
> "platforms" too) (which is going well this time, I think (I'm being a lot
> better about checking against clean checkouts, but having problems
> thinking of a goo
31 matches
Mail list logo
