[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> While no assumption is going unquestioned for Perl 6, I do still
> believe that the decision not to overload + for concatenation is one
> of the few things I did right in Perl 1.
Fair enough. And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself (or behind myself)
anyway
Apologies if this has already been covered, but I haven't been able to
keep up to date much recently. It occurs to me that the distinction between
the use of &, | and ^ for bitwise ops and their use for junctions can be
flattened. For instance, consider
$a = 2 | 3;
print $a;
Of course, i
Simon Cozens:
# $a = 2 | 3;
# print $a;
#
# but here's another way of looking at it. Given that we have a
# junction of two integers, we look at the zeroth bit of the
# junction. If ANY of the zeroth bits in 2 and 3 are set, then
# we set the zeroth bit in the result. If ANY of the firs
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
> PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Juergen Boemmels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without varargs macros this is not really simple. (IIRC they are
> introduced in C99, but are in gcc for years now).
Indeed, C99 standardized them, but in a way that differs from GCC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes:
> We have to--otherwise we can't have the self-modifying parser Larry
> desperately wants.
That's funny. I wondered precisely why I'd been working on self-modifying
parsers in C.
--
10. The Earth quakes and the heavens rattle; the beasts of nature flock
toge
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
> When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
> around, just to build a perl with NV==double? I've looked around, can't
> find anything about it except in KNOWN_ISSUES (only match in RT is
> "Parrot_sprintf-related stuff"). Sc
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose it's very doable to have a FrenchPerl6 editor/parser/whatever
> that makes most of this transparent, but the thing I like the most about
> programming languages it that their are foreign languages.
Microsoft once made a huge experimen
If I misunderstood you -- correct me. It seems that all you worry
about is that you want some variable be seen in several subroutines
.. you propose a mechanism of passing them between desired subroutins
by default through all the dynamical chain of sub calls "connecting
them. It seems , on the
I think , ( on the second reading of your post ) , that your proposal
of "my $x is yours" is logically very similar to my proposal of "our
$x is shared" but your proposal is cleaner if I understand it as
follows ( although I like more "shared" instead of "yours" for that
purpose ) : instead of ali
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, 6:16:41 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
>> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 08:28, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>>> - floating point becomes allowed in explicit radix (and 0b,0c,0x)
>>
>> How can one h
At 9:20 AM -0500 11/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
around, just to build a perl with NV==double? I've looked around, can't
find anything about it except in KNOWN_ISSUES (only match
At 1:46 PM +0100 11/24/02, Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
That'll be done with the standard exception handling mechanism
Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Sorry for the ignorant question: This does mean what and implying that
and whatsoever?
At 9:34 AM + 11/23/02, Jerome Quelin (via RT) wrote:
Well, the topic says it pretty much: befunge now supports the push and
pop instructions builtin in PerlArray PMC, and I can get rid of my own
crafted version of push and pop in Parrot Assembly.
Fear, cause now I'll be able to find even more
At 8:07 PM +0100 11/24/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
"Iacob Alin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This might be a stupid question, but are this datatypes going to be
PMCs?
And a related question: What about trapping integer arithmetic?
Sorry for the ignorant question: This
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> .NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
> an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
> an exception (if you've used the "check overflow" versions of the ops)
Actually, I thought about implementing
At 10:33 PM +0100 11/24/02, Florian Weimer wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
.NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
an exception (if you've used the "check overflow" versions of
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:33:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > .NET has exception-throwing versions of its math operations. If you do
> > an add of two 8-bit integers and the result overflows, you should get
> > an exception (if you've used the "ch
> you propose a mechanism of passing [vars]
> between desired subroutins by default
> through all the dynamical chain of sub
> calls "connecting them.
There's more, or rather, less to it than that.
The same mechanism also includes a clean way
to pass "it", something that needs to be done.
And a
> I like more "shared" instead of "yours"
But that's because that's the way you are
thinking about the problem/solution.
I'm just talking about a very local trick
of having autoargs instead of explicitly
passing args in parens. The fact that this
ends up creating an elegant alternative to
dangero
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:20 AM -0500 11/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> >On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, David Robins wrote:
> >> When's the long double "KNOWN ISSUE" going to be fixed? What's the work
> >It's (at least partly) a packfile alignment thing. I think if you look in
> >t
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Floating point fills me with fear.
If it makes you feel better, C# does not require overflow
detection on floating-point operations. FP overflow results
in +/-INF, underflow results in zero, and undefined is NAN.
Only integer overflow detection is required, and then only
Me writes:
>
> 4. Autoargs are conceptually simpler than
> shared variables, for both newbies and
> experts. But clearly this is subjective. :>
>
thats exactly the point where I tryed to improve. Think of me as a
newbe ( which I am ) -- If I understand your proposal , I can explain it to
At 10:55 AM +1000 11/25/02, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Floating point fills me with fear.
If it makes you feel better, C# does not require overflow
detection on floating-point operations. FP overflow results
in +/-INF, underflow results in zero, and undefined is NAN.
Only
Warning: I just watched The Wizard Of Oz
for the first time tonight.
> $x is yours
>
> tells that $x is aliased to variable in
> some "secret scope symbol table" that
>( the table ) is shared between caller
> and callee
The "secret" place is MyYourca, a Subterranean
island. People think it's an
26 matches
Mail list logo
