Shlomi Fish:
# 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)
When asking wh
Brent Dax:
> When asking why we don't use external tool or library X, first answer
> three questions:
Perfect. I think this should go in the FAQ.
Simon
--
Writing software is more fun than working.
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> Shlomi Fish:
> # 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,
> #
Shlomi Fish:
> Fine, let me ask this: why we're doing it ourselves instead of using gmp?
If you'd think about the answers to Brent's questions, you'd know.
Simon
--
God gave man two ears and one tongue so that we listen twice as much as
we speak.
-- Arab proverb
[Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:10:43PM +0200: Shlomi Fish]
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > *After* you've answered those three questions, proceed to ask why we're
> > doing it ourselves instead.
> >
>
> Fine, let me ask this: why we're doing it ourselves instead of using gmp?
>From
I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to decide how big to
make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though. Perhaps we'd
be even better served if we passed in something a bit more complex.
We are, after all, likely to get something like this at the perl level:
my Str @foo
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to decide how big to
> make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though. Perhaps we'd
> be even better served if we passed in something a bit more complex.
>
> We are, after all
At 02:51 PM 3/13/2002 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to decide how big to
> > make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though. Perhaps we'd
> > be even better served if we passed in s
Simon Cozens
Ok, I'm impatient. Forgive me for saying:
At what point could Perl6 development begin?
I know, Larry's not done with his Pocky-plickses, and Parrot is
but an infant.
But surely some bits of perl can be strung soon? Will there
be perl development in parallel with parrot development?
Rob
--
Drâ
At 2:51 PM + 3/13/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to decide how big to
>> make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though. Perhaps we'd
>> be even better served if we passed in some
At 1:10 PM +0200 3/13/02, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>Fine, let me ask this: why we're doing it ourselves instead of using gmp?
gmp's license-incompatible with perl and parrot.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan
At 4:51 PM + 3/11/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>One of them takes a FILE*, one takes a file descriptor...
read predates the Parrot I/O system. Fix in the works. (Potentially
done by now)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"--
At 1:30 PM -0600 3/13/02, Robert Eaglestone wrote:
>Ok, I'm impatient. Forgive me for saying:
>
>At what point could Perl6 development begin?
Some's done now. Look at the miniperl in the source tree.
>But surely some bits of perl can be strung soon? Will there
>be perl development in parallel
Dan Sugalski:
# At 2:51 PM + 3/13/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
# >On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:03:13AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# >> I like the fact that we're adding an arg to init to
# decide how big to
# >> make the resulting PMC. It got me to thinking, though.
# Perhaps we'd
# >> be even better
Robert Eaglestone:
> At what point could Perl6 development begin?
A couple of weeks ago. Keep up in the back there! I've
started prototyping the tokeniser, and I need to sit down
and sketch out the grammar. Once that happens, we can work
out where to go from there.
--
I forgot that I was *that*
At 01:49 PM 3/13/2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 4:51 PM + 3/11/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>>One of them takes a FILE*, one takes a file descriptor...
>
>read predates the Parrot I/O system. Fix in the works. (Potentially done
>by now)
I committed a couple of read ops for the PIO stuff. It
Enclosed patch updates the manifest to match reality.
Simon
--- MANIFEST.oldWed Mar 13 18:43:05 2002
+++ MANIFESTWed Mar 13 18:43:43 2002
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
docs/pdds/pdd11_extending.pod
docs/pdds/pdd12_assembly.pod
docs/pdds/pdd13_bytecode.pod
+docs/pdds/pdd14_bignum.pod
docs
At 06:47 PM 3/13/2002 -0500, Simon Glover wrote:
> Enclosed patch updates the manifest to match reality.
>
> Simon
Applied, thanks.
-Melvin
19 matches
Mail list logo
