On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:57:49PM +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> Ok, here is the updated schemepair-patch.
Thanks for this, but I'm afraid I'm not going to apply it. The reason
being:
> To implement nested pairs its nessary to introduce 2 new vtable functions
> and the acompaning core.ops to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > "Larry" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Larry> I think our terminology is getting sloppy here. What
> Larry> do you mean by "inherit from that method"? If the
> Larry> derived method overrides the base method, it will
At 11:47 PM + 1/22/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:54:59PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> The only problem I had with the patch was that I couldn't get it to
>> apply.
>
>Same here. I'd like to see it in Parrot.
>
>(I'm back, BTW, but with *lots* of catching up to do. You
At 12:59 PM -0500 1/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 06:04 PM 1/22/2002 +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
>>implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
>>am wondering what is the reason for this.
>
>Hi, I
At 6:04 PM +0100 1/22/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Hello,
>
>some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
>implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
>am wondering what is the reason for this.
>
>Was the patch too long, or too outdated (I can resend a newer
At 9:25 AM + 1/23/02, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
> Hellows
>
> Can anybody give me a simple but complete explanation of the
>PMC register
>type? Thanks
Sure--a PMC register is, in C terms:
struct PMC *;
And the register set is just an array of PMC pointers. If tha
From interpreter.h:
INTVAL flags;/* Various
interpreter flagBut whBut what
that signal that runops
should do something */
I'd supply a patch, but I'm not
These are the items that iam interested in selling..
Could you help me with some details on the goods, history, origin etc.
are these worth anything and if so who would i contact with regards to
selling them? and the best way to sell them ie auction etc
APOLOGISE IF YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THIS
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
> accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>'
At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
>> accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
>
>Is
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
At 11:32 AM 01-24-2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
>>> accessed,
From: Glenn Linderman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Graham Barr wrote:
> > But the base class may be just an interface class. And thus
> > by inheriting the pre conditions you are enforcing the API.
> > So I can see a use for it, but I can also see where you
> > don't want it too.
>
> So if th
From: Garrett Goebel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> From: Glenn Linderman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > So maybe your point was that when you replace a method from a
> > base class that you only have 1 subroutine for that method,
> > the replacement one, because there wasn't really one there
>
On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 08:48, Garrett Goebel asked:
> So which Apoc will be the OO one?
Apoc 12, to go by the chapters of the 3rd Camel.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:30:41AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : INIT, DESTROY, AUTOLOAD, etc., all make sense to me. They really are
> : special blocks that normally only occur once in a file. But CATCH and
> : NEXT are part of normal syntax. I don't think they're any more "unusual"
> : in the
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 06:00:21PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >final and private are completely different concepts as I understand
> >them.
>
> I wouldn't say "completely different". They are both used for "enforcement"
> of similar means, but you are correct, they are different.
I view "final
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation operators:
> >
> > @result = map @data { mapping() }
> > @result = grep @data { selector() };
> > @result = sort @data { comparison() };
>
[Note: I've resent this - since apparently it never made it
to the list. Can someone please complain offlist if they
did get the previous one?]
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation ope
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:30:41 -0800 (PST), Larry Wall wrote:
> Andy Wardley writes:
> : Same with 'last/NEXT' - they're so similar
> : in concept that the implementation details should not matter.
>
> You mean last/LAST and next/NEXT, I suspect. But there's another
> argument for case differentia
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To implement nested pairs its nessary to introduce 2 new vtable functions
> > and the acompaning core.ops to get and set the PMC value of the indexed
> > element. I choosed set_p_p_i and set_p_i_p. The later one is inconsistent
> > with indexed set op
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>code destination, dest_key, source1, source1_key, source2, source2_key
>
> The key parameters are optional, and may be either an integer or a
> string. [...] Any time a source or destination can be a PMC register,
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
> > pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
> > accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
>
> I
At 06:11 PM 1/24/2002 +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>I've no idea which is the best way to go. The Pair-Implementation just
>needs one way to get a PMC-value of an (constant) index.
>
>I will delay my patch until this issue is solved
Maybe you could bang on this issue and work out a good solutio
At 05:23 PM 1/24/2002 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > * Introduce a new register-type for Keys.
>
>No, I don't think this is the right way.
Just a question, what is the status of the Scheme parser. Is it even
ready to generate code for working with these constructs? Maybe work top
down on this on
=?iso-8859-1?q?Jonathan=20E.=20Paton?= writes:
: >
: > >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: > >
: > >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
: > all the list
: > >manipulation operators:
: > >
: > > @result = map @data { mapping() }
: > > @result = grep @data { s
Garrett Goebel writes:
: And this is just looking at it in the simple case. When multiple-dispatch
: comes into the picture, then we'll have different invokations of the same
: method being dispatched to different implementations depending on the
: parameter list. I wonder how PRE/POST will work o
Damien Neil writes:
: On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 06:00:21PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
: > >final and private are completely different concepts as I understand
: > >them.
: >
: > I wouldn't say "completely different". They are both used for "enforcement"
: > of similar means, but you are correct, th
Peter Haworth writes:
: On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:30:41 -0800 (PST), Larry Wall wrote:
: > Andy Wardley writes:
: > : Same with 'last/NEXT' - they're so similar
: > : in concept that the implementation details should not matter.
: >
: > You mean last/LAST and next/NEXT, I suspect. But there's anoth
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 10:48:45AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> When multiple-dispatch comes into the picture, then we'll have
> different invokations of the same method being dispatched to different
> implementations depending on the parameter list. I wonder how PRE/POST
> will work once that c
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Garrett Goebel writes:
> : And this is just looking at it in the simple case. When
> : multiple-dispatch comes into the picture, then we'll
> : have different invokations of the same method being
> : dispatched to different implementations dependin
At the moment, the assembler doesn't seem to like single character
labels. For instance, this code:
bsr aa
print "Didn't branch \n"
end
aa: print "Branched \n"
end
prints "Branched", as one would expect, but this code:
bsr a
print "Didn't br
The following line in interpreter.c
interpreter->perl_stash = pmc_new(interpreter, enum_class_PerlHash);
is now causing Solaris 8/Sun Workshop cc to throw the following error:
(reformatted for clarity)
"interpreter.c", line 534: warning: assignment type mismatch:
pointer to struct S
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>' op in Apo 3) ??
>
> DS> Good point. it probably is, yes. (Though there may be potential
> DS> differences--depends on whether the scheme pair can only have scalars
> DS> on each side, o
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:23 PM 1/24/2002 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > * Introduce a new register-type for Keys.
> >
> >No, I don't think this is the right way.
>
> Just a question, what is the status of the Scheme parser. Is it
> even ready to generate code for worki
I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
questions about Parrots capabilities.
Will Parrot support templates (also known as generics)?
Will Parrot support operator overloading?
Do Parrot classes have constructors and destructors?
Does Parrot have garbage
Garrett Goebel writes:
: --_=_NextPart_001_01C1A506.D9BE78D0
: Content-Type: text/plain;
: charset="iso-8859-1"
:
: From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: >
: > Garrett Goebel writes:
: > : And this is just looking at it in the simple case. When
: > : multiple-dispatch comes in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
# questions about Parrots capabilities.
#
#Will Parrot support templates (also known as generics)?
If you mean like C++ templates, then the answer is that it's up to the
language. There won't be anyth
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > According to this document the set_p_n_i notation would be wrong. But
> > I already heard that the index-system is a moving target.
>
> In this case, I'd prefer you trusted the documentation. :)
Which one parrot_assembly.pod or core_ops.pod? They are
Thanks Brent.
# #Does Parrot have garbage collection?
# Not yet, but it will.
When it does, I'd ask that there be some sort of option on what type of
garbage collection is used. This is because different methods of garbage
collection have very different characteristics.
For example, refer
[Brent's answered some of these already, but I'll fill in the blanks.
Also some of the answers presume a fully-implemented engine, which we
don't have yet]
At 2:52 PM -0500 1/24/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
>questions about
At 10:08 PM +0100 1/24/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > According to this document the set_p_n_i notation would be wrong. But
>> > I already heard that the index-system is a moving target.
>>
>> In this case, I'd prefer you trusted the documentation.
At 1:49 PM -0500 1/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>The following line in interpreter.c
>
> interpreter->perl_stash = pmc_new(interpreter, enum_class_PerlHash);
>
>is now causing Solaris 8/Sun Workshop cc to throw the following error:
>(reformatted for clarity)
D'oh! Thinko. I'll fix.
--
At 8:12 PM +0100 1/24/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>' op in Apo 3) ??
>>
>>DS> Good point. it probably is, yes. (Though there may be potential
>>DS> differences--depends on whether the s
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Correct, especially a list is nothing but a pair with another pair or
>> an end-of-list-marker in its second element. To implement set-car! and
>> set-cdr! both elements of this pair must be mutable
DS> Hmmm. I think we can use on
On Thursday 24 January 2002 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
> questions about Parrots capabilities.
Brent and Dan have already answered, so I'm going to be so foolish as to
answer, too.
>Will Parrot support operator ov
Who is the keeper of the FAQ? This is gold.
--Josh
--- Forwarded Messages
Date:Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:35:05 -0800
From:"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: How Powerful Is Parrot?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# I've been watching the P
Larry wrote:
> : > I strongly suspect that DbC and multimethods are, at best,.
> : > orthogonal My gut level feeling is that multimethod calls look
> : > like ordinary subroutine calls, and the "method" eventually
> : > selected evaluates only its own PRE/POST conditions, which could
> : > perhaps
48 matches
Mail list logo
