The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030302
Welcome back to another episode in the ongoing saga that is the Perl 6
development process (or at least my attempt to describe it).
We kick off with perl6-internals.
IMCC calling conventions
Piers Cawley attempted to describe tail
> "Peter" == Peter Seibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I'm new to this list and haven't had a chance to grovel
> through the old archives yet so please forgive me for jumping in
> in the middle of things.
> Anyway, what about languages that don't attach methods to
>
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
>> Jason Gloudon wrote:
>>> Piers Cawley wrote:
>>>
> I think you're overlooking the "restoreall" done just before
> the jump-no-save-returnaddress operation... I see two "saveall"s
> and two "restoreall"s.
But with proper tail c
Jason Gloudon wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:07:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > > I think you're overlooking the "restoreall" done just before the
> > > jump-no-save-returnaddress operation... I see two "saveall"s and
> > > two "restoreall"s.
> >
> > But with proper tail call optimi
At 4:00 PM -0500 3/3/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:07:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I think you're overlooking the "restoreall" done just before the
> > jump-no-save-returnaddress operation... I see two "saveall"s and
> > two "restoreall"s.
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> # especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> # much appreciate it.
> ...
> # Attributes are local to a class in an object's inheritance hierarc
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > > especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'
Brent Dax wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> # especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> # much appreciate it.
[snip]
> I honestly don't care much about such languages, but how is Parrot
> going to support clas
Erik Bågfors wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Objects have (all optional):
> > > >
> > > > *) Properties
> > > > *) Methods
> > > > *) Attributes
> >
At 5:54 PM -0800 3/2/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
much appreciate it.
The thing that I noticed was the lack of semantics for creation and
Hence the next
Erik Bågfors wrote:
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
>> Erik Bågfors wrote:
>>> Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If
folks, especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime
in, I'd much appreciate it.
Objects have (all optional):
>>
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
much appreciate it.
Objects have (all optional):
*) Properties
*)
At 6:29 PM -0800 3/2/03, Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
# especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
# much appreciate it.
...
# Attributes are local to a class in an object's inheritance hierarchy.
# An obje
At 5:30 PM +0100 3/3/03, Erik Bågfors wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:52, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > especially non-perl folks,
At 12:43 PM -0500 3/3/03, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
AFAIK, though, properties are only attatched to values (not variables),
and are entirely run-time things.
Nope, they can go on both (or either), which makes things somewhat
more interesting.
--
Dan
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd much
appreciate it.
The thing that I noticed was the lack of semantics for creation and
destruction. Will there be well defined creation semanti
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> Um... no. tail call optimization implies being able to replace *any*
>> >> tail call, not just a recursive one with a simple goto.
>> > [sn
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:21:32AM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
>
> [snip lots of good stuff]
>
>> All this is obviously machine dependent: the code generated should
>> only run in the machine it was compiled for. So we should always keep
>> the original
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> much appreciate it.
>
>
> Objects have (all optional):
>
> *) Properties
> *) Methods
> *) Attributes
Can
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:07:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I think you're overlooking the "restoreall" done just before the
> > jump-no-save-returnaddress operation... I see two "saveall"s and
> > two "restoreall"s.
>
> But with proper tail call optimization you'd only need *one*
> saveal
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 9:34 PM -0800 2/27/03, David wrote:
>>Is there a List datatype for Parrot? I'm looking for something along the lines
>>of what's in Python. Specifically, it should be able to do the following
>>operations:
>
> Not yet, though we do need one. There's no
From: Erik Bågfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 23:21, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's another shot at the semantics for objects. If folks,
> > especially non-perl folks, would look this over and chime in, I'd
> > much appreciate it.
> >
> >
> > Objects have (all op
22 matches
Mail list logo
