On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 03:08:58AM +, Alex Gough wrote:
> =head2 Rounding
>
> The rounding part of the context defines the rounding algoritm to be
> used, the following are provided (examples assume a precision of 5):
>
> =over 4
>
> =item Round down
This is rounding to zero, isn't it?
>
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 03:08:58AM +, Alex Gough wrote:
> > =head2 Rounding
> >
> > The rounding part of the context defines the rounding algoritm to be
> > used, the following are provided (examples assume a precision of 5):
> >
> > =over 4
> >
>
Nicholas Clark:
> > =item Round half even
> This is the standard financial way of rounding?
Is it? That's something we need to get extremely right.
--
"The Amiga is the only personal computer where you can run a multitasking
operating system and get realtime performance, out of the box."
-- Pe
There's nothing particularly unusual about my x86 FreeBSD 4.5 box, except
maybe that it's a little old.
Attempting to build current parrot with -Os [gcc's optimise for space flag]:
swap_pager: out of swap space
swap_pager_getswapspace: failed
pid 149 (screen-3.9.5), uid 0, was killed: out of swa
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> There's nothing particularly unusual about my x86 FreeBSD 4.5 box, except
> maybe that it's a little old.
>
> It does compile and test perfectly on the defaults (no optimisation), and
> on -O. It's just -Os that goes nasty.
>
> OK, so the machine only
On Friday 22 February 2002 01:01, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I want to emulate a packed structure with Parrot in the way a compiler
> would normally do this for a low level machine.
>
> It just needs traditional notation for setting fields by offset into
> the struct.
>
> I sort of feel that PerlString
At 08:16 AM 2/22/2002 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Friday 22 February 2002 01:01, Melvin Smith wrote:
> > I want to emulate a packed structure with Parrot in the way a compiler
> > would normally do this for a low level machine.
> >
> > It just needs traditional notation for setting fields b
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Exactly. If we added this to String I think it would work.
I don't know if that's exactly what you want. A string is a list of
integers corresponding to character points and nothing more than that
so probably doesn't form a good vehicle for a packed da
Nicholas --
Apologies in advance. I set out to make a short answer, but it
turned out long. Since find_op() is related to other work I want
to do/see done, discussion of it brings 'round those other thoughts,
too.
Liquefaction Guaranteed.
[snip]
> Hmm. I bet a coffee the problem is static int
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 11:53:12AM +, Simon Cozens was heard to mutter:
> Nicholas Clark:
> > > =item Round half even
> > This is the standard financial way of rounding?
>
> Is it? That's something we need to get extremely right.
[ 2:12PM]parrot/types% perl bignum_atest.pl rounding.decTest |
Ok, I thought there was some gotcha, knowing very little
of the String pmc. I'll take this as a good enough reason
to implement a generic "packed" pmc.
It should be very simple, no fancy ops on it, just keyed
interface and stringifications.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 19:49, Larry Wall wrote:
> David M. Lloyd writes:
> : On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote:
> :
> : > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like:
> : >
> : > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { }
> : >
> : > to avoid my program writing garbage to ST
[not had time to read your whole message, about to go out]
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:00:29AM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Of course, thats all irrelevant if it doesn't compile. There are two
> ways out, from my perspective:
>
> (1) Split core.ops into multiple oplibs, with the *really* cor
Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 19:49, Larry Wall wrote:
: > David M. Lloyd writes:
: > : On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote:
: > :
: > : > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like:
: > : >
: > : > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { }
: > : >
: > : > t
Of course, this idea may have already been considered and rejected, in
which case I'm just curious to learn the reasons.
What would be the cost (performance, design or dwim) of making all the
defaulting constructs pay attention to the current topicalizer in
preference to $_?
C is beautifully dwi
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:00:29AM -0500, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> I'm not surprised that find_op() is causing some distress. The "best
> way" is subject to interpretation, of course. TMTOWTDI all over again.
> I chose this way because whenever I started talking about op lookup
> by name, cries w
Fixes various warts in header files, such as:
* macros
-added parens to prevent problems with operator precedence
-removed ; at end
* removed SSIZE_MAX, since ssize_t is no longer used
* removed some misinformation about NULL and function pointers
from a comment.
* added some more INLINE def
Good stuff! However, regarding the function pointer thing, i've got compilers
(tcc and lcc) which disagree with you.
Using NULL where a function pointer is expected is considered an error by
tcc, and a mandatory warning by lcc. It is my understanding that conversion
between data pointers and
My tinderboxen are doing a make cvsclean. However, the tcc and lcc builds
were still choking until i did a make clean. Would it hurt to add "clean"
to the dependencies for "cvsclean"? I'm not sure exactly what it's doing
that helped (something with the pmc generated .c files, i believe), but
I found a solaris 2.5 box with perl 5.004_04 and gcc 2.7.2. After
installing a more modern perl, i got things to build, with a little
tweaking. Turns out we were using a warning flag which doesn't exist on
2.7. Simple tweak though:
[josh-010.patch]
Index: Configure.pl
20 matches
Mail list logo
