> He then went on to describe something I didn't understand at all.
> Sorry.
Few corrections to what you wrote:
To avoid the problem of extending {} to support new features with a
character 'x', without breaking stuff that might have an 'x' immediately
after the '{', my proposal is to require on
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski):
>At the moment, we don't have to support cascading lexical
>scratchpads--since we know at compile time which variables we're
>accessing and where they come from, we can install trampoline entries
>in the current scope's scratchpad and not have to s
Larry,
Please don't use 'but' to associate runtime properties to things.
Please call it 'has'.
First, but is just strange. I have a thing and I want to tell you it is
red, so I say 'but'. Huh?
Using 'has' makes a nice parallel with 'is' for compile time properties:
What you are is determinted
G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 09:55:46AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> It's fine for partial continuations certainly, but less fine if you
> want to implement full continations which require you to save the
> state of the entire stack. I was hoping I'd find a way to do this
> without having
G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:28:12PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> Add me to the list, because I'm writting the jit optimizer and ran into
> the same problem, we must add some metadata otherwise I will end up
> hard-coding all the information deep into the optimizer and that is a Bad
Let me see if I understand the final version of your (Mike's)
suggestions
and where it appears to be headed:
Backwards compatibility:
perl5 extended syntax still works in perl6 if one happens to use it.
Forward conversion:
Automatic conversion of relevant perl5 regex syntax to perl6 is simple.
I agree 'but' seems a tad odd, and I like the elegance of your
suggestion at first sight. However...
> First, but is just strange. I have a thing and I want to tell you it
is
> red, so I say 'but'. Huh?
banana but red;
"foo" but false;
According to Larry, run time properties will most
> [2c. What about ( data) or (ops data) normally means non-capturing,
> ($2 data) captures into $2, ($foo data) captures into $foo?]
which is cool where being explicit simplifies things, but
ain't where implicit is simpler. So, maybe add an op ('$'?)
or switch that makes parens capturing by d
On 4/20/02 3:02 PM, "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> banana now red;
> "foo" now false;
> banana now foo;
> banana now tainted;
>
> I read 'now' as somewhat suggestive of changing something.
I actually rather like this keyword. It not only suggests that something has
changed, but tha
I was playing around a bit with the set_keyed and get_keyed ops and found
that this:
new P0, PerlArray
set I0, 0
LOOP: set_keyed P0, I0, I0
inc I0
lt I0, 1, LOOP
end
causes Parrot to segfault.
The culprit appears to be this bit of code in
> The problem is that trace_buf->buflen is the size of the buffer, and
> not the number of PMCs contained in it, so the loop reads out of the
> end of cur_pmc and into garbage data. The patch below fixes this, and
> also adds a test-case to perlarray.t to stop it from coming back.
I thought t
G'day all.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:08:46PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Should it be all one keyword, or should 'const' be an orthogonal
> modifier?
IMO, one modifier, because "const" doesn't make sense on any direction
but "in".
> > - Nobody is likely to use it any time soon.
>
> I will
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:58:58PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> I think the problem could be fixed with some semantic constraints. For
> example:
>
> - No jumps between subs except through the sub's entry point
> are allowed.
Do we want to restrict subs to a single entry point
G'day.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> Do we want to restrict subs to a single entry point? (for example,
> what if you want one "initial" entry point, and one "resume" entry
> point that figures out where processing left off?)
Not necessarily. These are just idea
Andrew J Bromage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:06:10PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
>> - Local label addresses are only valid within the scope containing
>>the label (the result of jumping to someone else's local label is
>>undefined, possibly triggering an exceptio
15 matches
Mail list logo
