On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:17:04PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Presumably, C is a keyword and it would be an error to say "sub i".
Depends on how the complex module decides to implement it. It could
make it a keyword, or it could just import a sub of some sort.
Whether you have to "use" the compl
1: string cat is an old and reliable horsehide drum. I've been
doing C programming recently, where you can concat two literal
strings by having no other language tokens between them. Really.
That's the real basis for repeating the suggestion of juxtaposition
as a string joining operator. Syntac
On 11/16/02 Gopal V wrote:
> > the above was a partial cut&paste with s/mono/parrot/ :-)
>
> But don't act like you invented it Kaffe had one before you thought
> about mono JIT ...
The idea probably predates kaffe, too. Anyway, I didn't say I had the
idea, but the implementation. Quoting w
I did remove the somewhat hackish jit_restart function and changed
Parrot_jit_begin() to emit the jump to the given PC.
This implied a change, how the generated jit code gets called, it is now
called like:
run(interpreter, pc);
The code for i386 is done, other platforms have a comment there, w
If memory serves me right, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> If you think you have novel ideas in the JIT (or in the intepreter) space,
> you're probably just deluding yourself.
Oh yes I said that "debuggable JIT" is one of my very own personal
ingienous ideas .
This list for people who are intereste
Thanks to the hints of Gopal and Paolo, I added a simple stabs generator
for JIT code. As we currently don't have line numbers, the code assumes,
there are no comments and no empty lines, just one op per line.
Here is a sample debug session (the important thing happens after
build_asm where sym
>
> Why would C be a keyword? Its not in perl5, and I don't
> remember any discussion where non-real numbers would
> be part of the core language.
>
My fault.
For some strange reason I had a false idea that this had been said
somewhere, and didn't check. Shame on me.
-angel
> From: david nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 15 Nov 2002 18:56:35 -0600
>
I don't know if you haven't been paying attention, or you're
summarizing what's happened. I'll assume the former. Forgive me if
I've misunderstood you.
>
> 1: string cat is an old and reliable horsehide drum. I've be
Peter Haworth asked:
So to get the same yield context, each call to the coroutine has to be from
the same calling frame. If you want to get several values from the same
coroutine, but from different calling contexts, can you avoid the need to
wrap it in a closure?
I don't think so.
Damian
Piers Cawley wrote:
[Speculations elided]
Which is somewhat dependent on being able to do C.
Which you can't do, since C is compile-time.
Damian
Timothy S. Nelson asked:
Question: are there any plans to have user-defined meta-operators in perl6?
Explanation: By meta-operators, I mean operators which operate on other
operators (much as APL operators do to APL functions).
Yes. The vectorizing notation (»OP«) is an example.
Larry has
Luke Palmer wrote:
My favorite was from ages ago:
sub bar(;$foo //= $_) {...}
I think that today that would be written more like this:
sub bar(;$foo) is given($def_foo) {
$foo = $def_foo unless exists $foo;
...
}
Though we might get away with:
sub bar(;$foo = $def_foo) is given($
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
Luke wrote:
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
want from junctions?
Perhaps the above should just print JUNCTION(0x1234) or something
Hello all,
I have been away for a while. I started writing my own version of
parrot (or at least chunks of it) so I can get a feel for the current
parrot internals. I have learned a lot and now realize why some things
were done the way they were.
I am on memory management now and my impleme
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #18445]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18445 >
Packfile_new assumes that the memory it gets from mem_sys_allocate is
zeroed, which i
Andrew Wilson wrote:
It's the difference between this:
print;
and this:
print $_;
It is as far as I'm concerned exactly what topic is all about.
Exactly.
It let's you write subroutines that behave like builtins with respect
> to $_. I think it's generally intended to be used like so:
At 8:31 AM +1100 11/17/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Peter Haworth asked:
So to get the same yield context, each call to the coroutine has to be from
the same calling frame. If you want to get several values from the same
coroutine, but from different calling contexts, can you avoid the need to
wrap
Luke Palmer wrote:
sub foo($x) {
if ($x != 4) {
print "Not four\n";
}
if ($x == 4) {
print "Four\n";
}
}
sub oof($x) {
if ($x != 4) {
print "Not four\n";
}
else {
print "Four\n";
}
Brent Dax wrote:
More simply, !($x == 4) is no longer exactly equivalent to ($x != 4).
Correct. Junctive algebra and logic is slightly different. yet another
reason not to allow junctions to seep into subroutines by default.
Actually, this suggests to me a flaw in the != operator, not a flaw
On Saturday, November 16, 2002, at 04:52 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
if $moe|$larry|$curly == $hurt {...} # i.e. any of them hurt
and:
if $moe|$larry|$curly != $hurt {...} # at least one not hurt
and also between:
if $moe&$larry&$curly == $hurt {...} # all hurt
and:
if $moe&$
Scott Duff essayed:
So, I was all set to show how this could work with junctions, but then
I realized that I don't understand them well enough, so here's what I
came up with:
$j0 = $that_happens | $that_doesnt_happen;
$j1 = !$that_happens | !$that_doesnt_happen;
given ($this) {
when $j0 ~
Dan Sugalski pondered:
What does:
>
$foo = any(Bar::new, Baz::new, Xyzzy::new);
$foo.run;
do?
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C<.run> method on
each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results of the calls
(which, in the void context is ignored, o
Acadi asked:
> Just ( my ) terminology clean-up : in this example sub{ } is implicit
> topicalizer
No. It isn't a topicalizer at all.
> ( it does not set $_ explicitly )
Or implicitly.
> and you are setting $_ for perl .
Yes.
> that's why you can use "when" .
Yes.
is this valid ?
(mor
Austin Hastings pondered:
my $outfh = all(@input_handles);
while (<$outfh>) print;
No. Apart from the bug (leaving off the braces around the C...spot
the C hacker! ;-), this reads from each of the @input_handles and returns
a conjunction of the values that were read. The print then serializes t
Acadi asked:
is it possible to extend the perl sigil behaviour .
Yes.
that is , one day somebody decides it needs ¢ as sigil for certain
class of variables . will it be possible to do . ( without rewriting
the whole perl )
Yes. Just inherit the standard Perl grammar, extend the C rule and
I've submitted three bugs for Perl 6 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] They're in RT, but they
haven't been announced on this group. I believe Allison has asked Ask to look
into this.
My plan is to funnel all Perl 6 test patches through the normal process, so they
may start showing up on this list. (If peop
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I dunno. One of the things I've seen with coroutines is that as long as
you call them with no arguments, you get another iteration of the
coroutine--you actually had to call it with new arguments to reset the
thing.
The formulation of coroutines I favour doesn't work like
> "Michael" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> If you wish to take part in the discussions (or even just lurk),
Michael> please reply to this message. If you have any particular goals that
Michael> you feel this list should be addressing, please let us know.
I'm here, sw
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:29:38PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> It is interesting that no one has yet taken the time to start defining the
> terms we're using.
Good point. I volunteered to be keeper of the glossary a while ago,
but I never actively started creating one. That said, let's make t
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:03:32PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:24:50AM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> : Also, on this subject...what happens if I want to use "letter notation"
> : in a base higher than 36?
>
> What happens then is that people will think you're silly. :-
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:33:31PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:28:38AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> > 1.23_e_4# ok?
>
> Hrm. This one is annoying, but I think it should be okay.
Are you sure? If so, can you explain why for me, because I don't
thin
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:02:02PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> $b = 4294967296:1.2.3.4 # base 2**32
Hmm, interesting. Just as an aside, this gives me an idea: would it be
feasible to allow the base to be specified as an expression instead of
a constant? (I'm pretty sure it would be useful.) Fo
32 matches
Mail list logo
