Re: Stacks, stacks, stacks (And frames)

Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > DS> We'll find out with A6 whether we do coroutines and continuations as > DS> part of the core perl. If not, well, python does the first and ruby > DS> the second, so it's all good in there

Re: [Patch] other mathematical operations

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 1:07 PM +0200 6/11/02, =?latin1?Q?Josef_H=F6=F6k?= wrote: > > > >I've added Gcd and factorial to core.ops, as attachement. > >Dan is this something you want? > >I also have "least common multiple" and "binomial" implementation > >waiting. If you wa

Dynaloading

Okay, I've been putting this off way too long. Here's what we're doing to load in shared libraries: loadlib Sx, Sy Where Sx is the fully qualified name of the library we're loading, and Sy is the name of the routine that we're invoking once we load the library. This should be the *only* ro

[perl@gloudon.com: [PATCH] packfile reading]

Could someone apply this ? - Forwarded message from Jason Gloudon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:33:56 -0400 From: Jason Gloudon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [

Re: [Patch] other mathematical operations

Jeff wrote: >How are we going to get people to write recursive subroutines if we have >a factorial operator? :) > [snip] sub offTopic { Have you seen Arc's factorial? The "short way" is really weird: (rec zero 1 * 1-) But then, the long way is still a bit odd to me, a non-LISPer

Re: [perl@gloudon.com: [PATCH] packfile reading]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Jason Gloudon wrote: > > Could someone apply this ? > > - Forwarded message from Jason Gloudon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Precedence: bulk > Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 1

Re: Dynaloading

At 04:55 AM 6/12/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > loadlib Sx, Sy > >Where Sx is the fully qualified name of the library we're loading, and Sy >is the name of the routine that we're invoking once we load the library. >This should be the *only* routine the library exports. > >The exported name

Re: Dynaloading

At 11:23 AM -0400 6/12/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >At 04:55 AM 6/12/2002 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >> loadlib Sx, Sy >> >>Where Sx is the fully qualified name of the library we're loading, >>and Sy is the name of the routine that we're invoking once we load >>the library. This should be the *onl

Re: Dynaloading

In message Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The exported name should be the MD5 checksum of a string that > represents the actual routine name we're looking for. This, I think, > should be specified somewhere external to the library, in s

Re: Dynaloading

At 7:21 PM +0100 6/12/02, Tom Hughes wrote: >In message > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The exported name should be the MD5 checksum of a string that >> represents the actual routine name we're looking for. This, I think, >> shoul

Exceptions sample

Can you let me know if the way I think about exceptions is ok? Thanks, Daniel Grunblatt. set I0,0 set I8,10 try # User exception catch !WRONG_NUMBERS, PRINT_WRONG # Trying to catch an exception that was already catched. catch !NOT_SUCH_FILE, NEVER_MADE_IT print "step

Re: 6PAN (was: Half measures all round)

|On 6/4/02 12:22 PM, David Wheeler wrote: |> I think that if we can agree to forego backwards compatibility, we might |> also be in a better position to set up a CP6AN with much better quality |> control. All of the most important modules will be ported very quickly |> (e.g., the DBI), and a l

Re: 6PAN (was: Half measures all round)

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:00:13AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > |On 6/4/02 12:22 PM, David Wheeler wrote: > |> I think that if we can agree to forego backwards compatibility, we might > |> also be in a better position to set up a CP6AN with much better quality > |> control. All of the most

Re: [netlabs #702] BASIC causes sevg's in parrot

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 12:04:19PM -, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > # New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce" > # Please include the string: [netlabs #702] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # http://bugs6.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=702 > > >

Re: [netlabs #702] BASIC causes sevg's in parrot

At 09:03 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote: >On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 12:04:19PM -, Clinton A. Pierce wrote: > > # New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce" > > # Please include the string: [netlabs #702] > > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > > # htt