On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 11:03:15PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 4/15/02 10:24 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > The main point of doing this isn't really the migration from Perl 5,
> > but a basic underlying philosophy of linguistics known as tagmemics.
> ("tagmemics"? ;)
Yay, tagmemics! :) Shall
> Yay, tagmemics! :) Shall I offer an "Intro to Linguistics for Perl 6
> Developers" class? That would be fun!
Please!!!
-Miko "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse" O'Sullivan
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 16:41, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:07:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
> > my $self = invocant;
> >
> > or some such mummery. But that seems a bit retro.
>
> But now we have endless possibilities for
> $self.ish
> $self.less
> $self
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:29:21AM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
like it! :)
Allison
> > "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
>
> Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
> like it! :)
You got it!
I hope this isn't too off topic, but... is the word "tagmeme" somehow
related to the urban legend concept of a cultural "meme"?
-Miko
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:24:13PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
> user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
> "make sense", to the extent that the object is willing to be viewed like
> that.
AKA the
In this example:
%hash = ($a=>$b);
$a can be anything. In fact, since Perl6 promises to retain the original
value of $a, we're rather encouraged to store complex data there. But,
this poses a problem. The key to use for hashing might not ideally be
the string representation.
For example
Aaron Sherman writes:
: In this example:
:
: %hash = ($a=>$b);
:
: $a can be anything. In fact, since Perl6 promises to retain the original
: value of $a, we're rather encouraged to store complex data there. But,
: this poses a problem. The key to use for hashing might not ideally be
: the
Miko O'Sullivan writes:
: > > "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
: >
: > Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
: > like it! :)
:
: You got it!
:
: I hope this isn't too off topic, but... is the word "tagmeme" somehow
: related to the urban lege
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 12:21, Larry Wall wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> : This allows me to specify separate hashing and stringification methods,
> : but retains Perl's original default of combining the two.
>
> Yes, that's what we intend to do.
You can make a man feel so small ;-)
Thanks
At 8:21 PM +0200 4/14/02, Marco Baringer wrote:
>i have written 4 different forms of looping ops with varying degrees
>of usefullness. i think that if these were to are accepted the form
>which gets used the most in real code should be renamed 'loop' (of
>course, since most code is/will be machine
Hey,
Clint brought a small assembler string but to my attention, and I found
another bug while fixing the first. Bugs were:
a) 'a"b"c' was turned into 'a[sc:1]c' before being turned into [sc:2]
b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
Below patch fixes. Not sure if my use of the #
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pike predates Dawkins, who I believe made up the term.
> (Could be wrong about that.) They are similar concepts, however, in
> that a tagmeme is a psychological linguistic construct that propagates
> culturally.
Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
$b = "aa";
$a{$b} = 1;
chop $b;
print $a{"aa"};
still works.
If we start storing full thingies into the keys of a hash, we either need
to make deep copies of these, or
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>
> $b = "aa";
> $a{$b} = 1;
> chop $b;
> print $a{"aa"};
>
> still works.
>
> If we start storing full thingies in
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:24:13PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>> So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
>> user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
>> "make sense", to the extent that the object i
Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
syntax)
while {
when $a < $b { $b -= $a }
when $b < $a { $a -= $b }
}
The idea is that
On 4/16/02 11:00 AM, "Mike Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>
> $b = "aa";
> $a{$b} = 1;
> chop $b;
> print $a{"aa"};
>
> still works.
>
> If we start storing
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
>> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
>> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>>
>> $b = "aa";
>> $a{$b} = 1;
>> chop $b;
>> print $a{"aa"};
>>
>>
At 05:51 PM 04-16-2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
>
>So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
>computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
>syntax)
>
> while {
> when $a < $b { $b
On 4/16/02 11:57 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Personally I'd like the default hash to return some immutable, unique
> and probably opaque object id (something the like
> 'Foo=HASH(0x81e2a3c)' you get from unoverloaded objects in Perl5, but
> probably not identical). This isn'
Piers Cawley writes:
: Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
:
: So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
: computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
: syntax)
:
: while {
: when $a < $b { $b -= $a }
: when $b
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:00:33PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
RFC266 talks about these issues, though it was just really my take on
the problem at the time. http://de
Buddha Buck writes:
: It's weirder when you allow multiple guard conditions to be true with no
: guarantee of evaluation order. But I see no reason to disallow it.
Well, Perl would guarantee the order. I can see situations where it'd
be better to force a random pick to avoid starvation proble
Piers Cawley writes:
: Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
: >> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
: >> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
: >>
: >> $b = "aa";
: >> $a{$b} = 1;
:
On 4/16/02 12:27 PM, "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> You guys are thinking in terms of a single $obj.hash method. I think
> there will be more than one hashish (er...) method available, and each
> hash will be able to choose at least whether it wants to hash by $obj._
> (the default)
Piers Cawley writes:
: Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Hang on, now I'm a little confused - I thought that hashes were supposed
: > to keep their % sigil. So shouldn't that be %foo.keys or %foo.{keys}?
: > But then that would then violate the uniform access principle because
: > hash
David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/16/02 11:57 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
>> Personally I'd like the default hash to return some immutable, unique
>> and probably opaque object id (something the like
>> 'Foo=HASH(0x81e2a3c)' you get from unoverloaded objects i
[Apologies to Marco if he's getting this twice; this message didn't
seem to go out the first time I sent it.]
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 08:21:51PM +0200, Marco Baringer wrote:
>
> i have written 4 different forms of looping ops with varying degrees
> of usefullness. i think that if these were to a
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 01:55:30AM +0200, Marco Baringer wrote:
>
> sorry, the body of that message got lost:
>
> parrot is a cool technology, but it's s buzzword-lacking. well,
> here's the solution: xml based assembler!
For those of you who were as lazy as I was and didn't bother to untar
At 1:41 PM -0400 4/16/02, Mike Lambert wrote:
>Clint brought a small assembler string but to my attention, and I found
>another bug while fixing the first. Bugs were:
>a) 'a"b"c' was turned into 'a[sc:1]c' before being turned into [sc:2]
>b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
Th
I've been using single-quoted strings in the assembler interchangeably with
double-quoted strings
only because I couldn't find an easier way to say:
set S0, 'Dan said, "UGH!"'
Unless I used \ sequences for the double-quotes.
Personally, I'm in favor of keeping ' and " functionally equivale
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:57, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suspect it would involve:
> >
> > 1. Copying the key (which might be a reference) on insertion.
> > 2. Hashing once, and caching the hash.
> >
> > This means a minimum of overhead, so it's a good th
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On _THE SELFISH GENE_ Dawkins says he coined the term, which was a more
> euphonic version of "mimeme":
On quickly scanning that message I read the last word as "mini-me", which
brought up some *very* unlikely associations! :-)
Damian
--
"So, Mr. Evil..."
"It's Dr. E
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you describe better the need and usefulness of these ops? My
> immediate reaction is "Why not just code loops ourselves?" I think
> your ops can be implemented in two currently-existing opcodes apiece,
> and I'm guessing that JIT support for the more
This patch tidies up the formatting of string_substr and string_replace,
adds a bunch of comments, and moves a couple of assignments closer to
where the variables are actually used; none of the functionality should
be affected. All tests still pass (including the ones in a previous patch
tha
What should the substr ops produce if given a negative length argument?
At the moment, the four-arg. form hands back an empty string, while
the five-arg. form hands back a copy of the original string, ie:
set S0, "abcdefg"
substr S1, S0, 0, -1
print S1
print "\n"
and
set S2, ""
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:57:42PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >b) 'a\"b' was printing being stored as a\"b and not a"b
>
> The patch for the first looks good, but I'm not sure about the
> second. Have we settled on the behavior of single-quoted strings?
Don't know about "settled" but I sugges
I think Andy's post is going through moderation, but I can still reply to
it. :)
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:01:11 +0100
> From: Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Mike Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Assembler Strin
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:26 PM +0200 4/15/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
> >
> >Note that string_grow still has the problem with not bothering to allocate a
> >new buffer if copysize is zero, e.g. if we are expanding a previously empty
> >buffer.
> >
> >I have submitted a patch f
G'day all.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:52:05PM +0200, Marco Baringer wrote:
> regarding (2): vector processors would certainly benefit from having
> loops (espicially the ones over arrays of similar things (a large
> percentage of real world loops)) explicitly labeled as such.
A few of comments:
In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
It's important to note that writing:
for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
# in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
$y
is not the same as writing:
for @a, @b -> $x, $y {...}
# sequentially iterate @a then @b, two-at-a-time as
Compiling parrot with gcc's -Wredundant_decls option shows up a few
places where we're declaring functions twice in the same header file.
Patch below fixes.
Simon
--- include/parrot/chartype.h.old Tue Apr 16 22:33:46 2002
+++ include/parrot/chartype.h Tue Apr 16 22:31:56 2002
@@ -48
Applied, thanks. Had to change the chartype.h part a bit, as it didn't
want to apply on its own. I am not sure why.
Anyway, it's in. Is there a reason not to include -Wredundant_decls in
our default warnings flags?
--Josh
At 22:54 on 04/16/2002 EDT, Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Now, I love that the for loop can do both of these things, but the subtlety
> of the difference in syntax is likely, IMO, to lead to very difficult-
> to-find bugs. It's very easy to miss that I've used a comma when I meant to
> use a semicolon, and vice versa. And what's the mnemonic again?
We
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> Applied, thanks. Had to change the chartype.h part a bit, as it didn't
> want to apply on its own. I am not sure why.
>
> Anyway, it's in. Is there a reason not to include -Wredundant_decls in
> our default warnings flags?
>
I've just tried it out
It was the dawning of the second age of parrotkind, ten weeks after
the great GC war. The Parrot Project was a dream given form. Its goal:
To prevent language wars by creating an interpreter where perl and other
languages could reside peacefully... It can be a dangerous place, but
it's our last
Okay, I can't find any documentation on how to send problem reports, so
I hope this is sufficient and useful. If not, let me know:
I've included the scrollback from `perl Configure.pl`, and the first
pageful or so from `make`. (`make test`, of course, bombs completely,
even though `make` doesn'
David Hand:
# Okay, I can't find any documentation on how to send problem
# reports, so I hope this is sufficient and useful. If not,
# let me know:
#
# I've included the scrollback from `perl Configure.pl`, and
# the first pageful or so from `make`. (`make test`, of
# course, bombs complet
Simon Glover wrote:
> Well, one issue with this patch is that Parrot will now segfault if
> (s>buflen + addlen) < 0. It doesn't seem possible to actually provoke
> this behaviour at the moment, however - string_grow is only called
> from one place in string_replace, and the code in string_repl
50 matches
Mail list logo
