On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> I just subscribed to this list. My name's Luke and I'm a perl
> devotee. And I'm starting out with a bang. Here goes:
>
> I have just read through exegesis 3, and I found the bit about
> defining your own new operators (eg. operator:*#
At 1:24 AM + 3/12/02, Alex Gough wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Simon Glover wrote:
>
>>
>> For more fun in the same vein, try this:
>>
>>length S0
>>end
>>
>> In both cases the problem is that we're not checking the STRING*
> > pointer passed to the function before we start trying
Just my 2 pesos.
When CPUs are 10% faster, would this little optimization matter?
A typical CPU traps invalid derefs by segfaulting the process,
but the CPU itself doesn't explode.
I do see Dan's point, but I also predoct people gravitating
towards the "safe" interpreter because of that extra f
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 12:06:22PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> Just my 2 pesos.
>
> When CPUs are 10% faster, would this little optimization matter?
>
> A typical CPU traps invalid derefs by segfaulting the process,
> but the CPU itself doesn't explode.
>
> I do see Dan's point, but I also pre
I've pretty much finished this off, although I need to edit it to make
complete sense, but am busy so this might not happen right this minute
now.
Oh, and I've stolen number 14, so as what I can put it into cvs.
Enjoy...
Alex Gough
--
Once people ceased to understand how the machines around th
Question: why can't we link against GNU's GMP to provide us with those big
number facilities? Is there any reason we need to re-invent the wheel?
(except to make Parrot self-contained and non dependent on anything else,
which, IMO, is not a very good cause)
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-
