On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of module
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 03:35:39PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 08:30 PM 6/8/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> >Instead of using some space on the stack, co-routines can store all
> >their local variables into their closure. Then, there is no need to
> >swap in any context.
>
> We have to
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:39:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Instead of using some space on the stack, co-routines can store all
> >their local variables into their closure. Then, there is no need to
> >swap in any context.
>
> You still need to store the stack frames created since the start
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:34:19PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Indirect function calls will take maybe 50 cycles, so I'm not worried
> about their time. Compared to perl 5, that's fast.
With a JIT compiler, this starts to be significant, though.
> >A continuation can be invoked just like any o
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::Romana,
> Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
nefarious
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 03:54:06PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 02:36 PM 6/8/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >At 8:15 PM +0200 6/8/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 12:30:36PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >>> The Java VM does this by popping values off of the local stack,
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
> rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
> Including Grammar::Romana,
> Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
R.
Richard Nuttall wrote:
>
> > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
> > rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
> > Including Grammar::Romana,
> > Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
>
> Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:29:53PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> There's more than just exception handlers going on the control stack.
> Anything that needs rolling back or undoing (like localized variables
> or scope entry) will have an undo marker put on the control stack
> that gets called wh
Damian Conway:
# Richard Nuttall wrote:
# >
# > > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see
# a rash of
# > > modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including
# > > Grammar::Romana, Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy,
# Grammer::Mispelt,
# > > and others... :-)
# >
# > G
FYI.
If anyone wants to provide a uintptr_t-equivalent for parrot, i'll happily
switch this to use it.
--Josh
--- Forwarded Message
Date:09 Jun 2002 16:44:35 -
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: cvs commit: parrot/include/parrot parrot.h
cvsuser 0
like many of you i am fascinated by A5 but also my brain is overwhelmed
by it. i love that /x is the default but i would ask all of you to use
those comments liberally, even with trivial regexes while we all learn
this stuff. even simple ones are tricky looking if you don't grok the
syntax and se
At 04:34 PM 6/9/2002 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>cvsuser 02/06/09 09:34:43
> This needs rethinking. PIOHANDLE may not be an integer, so this
> implementation is probably incorrect. For now, i'm just disabling it
> unless
> the UNIX io module is used, so that warnings aren't gener
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Richard Nuttall wrote:
> > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
>
>I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that
>we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot.
Given that by the time Parrot is b
At 03:49 PM 6/9/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
Thanks for the links and references, Jerome. I'll have a go
at digesting these. As soon as the new neural pathways
have formed I'll try to comment on where I can see us
improving our implementation. :)
-Melvin
At 11:00 AM +0200 6/9/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:39:33PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >Instead of using some space on the stack, co-routines can store all
>> >their local variables into their closure. Then, there is no need to
>> >swap in any context.
>>
>> You st
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> Trey Harris wrote:
> > rule parsetag :w {
> > $tagname :=
> > %attrs := [ () =
> > ()
> > ]*
> >/?
> >
> > }
On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work
>
>Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
>nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and
>gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community
>consciousness: all
>about to culminate in unleashing of Perl 6 on an uns
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:59:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peschko, Edward wrote:
> : Let me get this straight. the grammar of Perl is reprogrammable,
> : and expressed in perl6. And a script is parsed using this grammar,
> : on the fly, hence portions of scripts could have
This seems like a good time to send in this patch:
It allocates the stack content memory using a buffer. This makes the stack
chunks and the memory used to hold stack contents visible to the garbage
collector. One can incrementally add to this to support copy-on-write
semantics for the chunk co
Uri Guttman asked:
> now, why does $0.{comment} refer to the internal regex and not the outer
> one?
Technically, $0 refers to the *match object* of the inner regex, not the inner regex
itself.
> is it because of it being in the closure?
Yes. And because $0 is lexically scoped.
> could yo
At 11:26 AM +0200 6/9/02, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 02:34:19PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Indirect function calls will take maybe 50 cycles, so I'm not worried
> > about their time. Compared to perl 5, that's fast.
>
>With a JIT compiler, this starts to be significant,
Trey Harris wrote:
> On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work quite right,
> because the :w would imply a \s+ between and , between
> the equals, and before the .
No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and
\s* between anything else.
Erik Steven Harrison henched:
> Ahhh, duh . . . Docter Claw . . .er Conway, uh, the Python always throws up
> Perl Coders . . . Shoulds we maybe bash him with the Giant Shell, or TCL him
> to death . . .
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a
steel bench and
24 matches
Mail list logo
