perl 5 already does that:
print "'$_' " foreach split /(=)/, "rank=?";
print "\n";
print "'$_' " foreach split /\s*(=)\s*/, "rank = ?";
print "\n";
# Output:
# 'rank' '=' '?'
# 'rank' '=' '?'
Greetings,
Christian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.web42.com/crenz/ - http://www.web42.com/
"
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:28 PM +0200 8/1/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
>>fetching an element out of bound changes the
>>length of the array. but should this really happen?
>
> Because that's the way Perl's arrays work. Joys of
> autovivification.
I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
does
Aldo Calpini wrote:
> I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
> does not show this behaviour:
It all depends. :-)
$\ = "\n";
$#a = 100;
print scalar(@a);
$x = $a[1][0];
print scalar(@a);
101
10001
Perl has to autoviv if it has to drill down.
--
John Douglas Porter
hello everybody,
here is my rough draft of the documentation for the
Parrot debugger. please review it (expecially the
boilerplate stuff like TITLE, HISTORY, etc. -- I don't
know if I have properly followed convention) (and if there
is one) and tell me if this should be sent as a patch.
I'm afr
John Porter wrote:
> It all depends. :-)
>
> [...]
>
> Perl has to autoviv if it has to drill down.
good point. but since we don't have multidimensional
array access right now (at least AFAIK), this seems
to be a non-issue. I don't know if p6 will autovivify
the way p5 does (and I hope not). IMH
John Porter wrote:
> Aldo Calpini wrote:
>
>>I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
>>does not show this behaviour:
>>
>
> $\ = "\n";
> $#a = 100;
> print scalar(@a);
> $x = $a[1][0];
This _writes_ to @a[1] by generating the entry:
P0, 100
P1 = new .PerlArray
P1 = 0
P0[100
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:11:41PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
>
> > Aldo Calpini wrote:
> >
> >>I have to disagree. the corresponding Perl script
> >>does not show this behaviour:
> >>
> >
> > $\ = "\n";
> > $#a = 100;
> > print scalar(@a);
> > $x = $a[1][0];
> > Pe
On 2002/08/02 16:11:26 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
>why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
>defined). In effect, all bar the last reference are in lvalue context -
>only the rightmos
> > - There's already a huge population of programmers out there who already
use
> > this notation. I frankly admit that I think of PHP as a great idea that
> > wasn't done quite right.
>
> I agree. Including that notation! ;-)
Touche. Darn it's difficult disagreeing with pithy people. :-)
OK
In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable?
I don't think we've seen too much about how Larry plans to do
Perl-munging-Perl except
That "Haegl" was actually me, Florian Haeglsperger (actually Häglsperger, but I don't
mind).
I accidently sent the mail using the wrong e-mail account. It is not my intention to
hide
myself behind a stupid nickname like "rEaLkEwLgUy2o0o" or something like that ;-)
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15942]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15942 >
The subroutine.pmc and sub.pmc problems ([perl #15920]) are gone now
that Dan chec
# New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
# Please include the string: [perl #15943]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15943 >
Sorry, I missed this patch hunk from #15880 (but I still think
eventually the dyna
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> one entry for each level of scope within.
I would use an array of arrays or a linked-list of arrays. This is
hardly more difficult to implement (you just ne
That's me. Will fix.
/s
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Jarkko Hietaniemi
> # Please include the string: [perl #15942]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15942 >
>
>
>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> context. Unfortunately, it doesn't know what register it's in until after
> it captures
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 05:20:45PM +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > one entry for each level of scope within.
>
> I would use an array of arrays or a link
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > one entry for each level of scope within.
>
> I would use an array of arrays or a linked-list of arrays. Th
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:07:11PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > - take a look at "new" in core.ops. Creating a new continuation captures
> > context, but the register holding that continuation is part of the
> > context. Unfortunately, it doesn't
All~
> >It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
> >why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
> >defined). In effect, all bar the last reference are in lvalue context -
> >only the rightmost is rvalue.
>
> The explanation is the part that wo
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:50:27AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:57:34AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > > My naive implementation would have an array of hashes for each sub, with
> > > one entry for each level of scope w
At 08:50 AM 8/2/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>Without performance numbers, this is hard to test, but it can potentially
>turn a single "a = b + c", which is just "add P0, P1, P2" if a, b, and c
>have been referenced, into a hideous five instructions:
>
> fetch_lex P0, 'a' # Because how w
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 08:50 AM 8/2/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> >Without performance numbers, this is hard to test, but it can potentially
> >turn a single "a = b + c", which is just "add P0, P1, P2" if a, b, and c
> >have been referenced, into a hideous five instructi
At 06:14 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>Melvin, I think it would really help if you could explain us how you
>would compile this code. Also, you should describe precisely what
>"invoke" and "new_pad" (and maybe the other scratchpad-related
>opcodes) do as far as scratchpads are concer
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 10:43, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> Sure, you need a hash. But this can be a statically allocated hash,
> mapping variable names to indices.
Could two parallel arrays work? One stores the lexicals (accessed by
index) and the other stores the names of the lexicals. Then to acces
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> You've often asked this list, "will doing X in a module be possible?"
> Consider the things that Damian's already done with modules in Perl 5. I
> think Damian's involvement in Perl 6 if nothing else will insure that, no
> matter what
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
: > (With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
: > but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
:
: Yay!
:
: $ cat infinite_compression.pl
At 8:53 AM -0400 8/2/02, Trey Harris wrote:
>(With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
>but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
Yeek! Hopefully Larry'll forbear--while he may be able to pull that
one off, I'm afraid I'm not up to the task
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:15:09AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> Could two parallel arrays work? One stores the lexicals (accessed by
> index) and the other stores the names of the lexicals. Then to access a
> lexical by name involves a sequential search through the (probably not
> large) array
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:42 PM +0100 8/1/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >Am I allowed to write ancillary functions I want the JIT to call in
> >assembler? I presume that the JIT needs to go fast, and I suspect that there
> >are some bits that are easier to write in assembler (e
At 4:28 PM +0200 8/2/02, Haegl wrote:
>On 2002/08/02 16:11:26 Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It does on reading. I forget the eloquent explanation about the how or
>>why, but all references bar the leftmost are vivified. (Even inside
>>defined). In effect, all bar the last reference
# New Ticket Created by "Mr. Nobody"
# Please include the string: [perl #15948]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15948 >
I sent this patch before but it got the wordwraps
messed up, its enclosed as an attachm
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15949]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15949 >
hash->num_buckets is unsigned, so we were getting a "comparison between
signed and u
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15951]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15951 >
The title says it all really: the counter in the interpreter structure
that tracks
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15952]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15952 >
mem_allocs_since_last_collect is the number of new blocks allocated,
not the total m
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #15953]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15953 >
A few more tests for the GC ops.
Simon
--- t/op/gc.t.old Fri Aug 2 17:03:13
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 06:43:49PM +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:50:27AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > I don't see how you can cope with '%MY' unless you have a hash. You could
> > have a hash in addition to the array, I suppose.
>
> Sure, you need a hash. But th
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:55:21AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I agree -- we should separate new from init at some level. I think the
> "new" opcode should still both allocate and initialize, while the
> normal sequence for getting a PMC should become
>
> x = pmc_new(...);
> x->vtable->in
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:43:39PM +, Jürgen Bömmels wrote:
> In the quest for removing warnings, I added an option --ccwarn to
> Configure.pl. With this option I could selectivly turn on and off
> warnings, and especially compile with -Werror, so I don't miss any
> warnings. The simple warnin
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable? I
> don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
Something like this:
grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C:
According to Damian Conway:
> {
> temp sub false() {0}
> # etc.
> }
I'm a bit concerned about what that would do to subroutines in other
modules called during the block's execution. Perhaps "my sub" instead?
PS: I wonder if the names would be &FALSE and &
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> > don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
>
> Something like this:
>
> grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C::Comments is Perl {
>
> rule ws { | }
>
> rule ugly_c_comment {
> /\* [ .*
At 06:14 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Jerome Vouillon wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:40:39AM -0600, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > So here is my take on a slightly simpler example:
> >
> > sub foo {
> > my $x = 13;
> > return sub { print "$x\n"; };
> > }
> >
> > $foo()
>
>Melvin, I think it w
43 matches
Mail list logo
