On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0100, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> At 10:37 + 3/10/03, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >I think this might be interesting to some of you...
> > "Judy is a general purpose dynamic array implemented as a C callable
> > library. Judy's speed and memory usage are typically
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #21536]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21536 >
Hello,
next part in the move to PIO.
open and close.
This uses interpreter->piodata
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Coroutines end and DFG
> > Nobody explained what DFG stands for.
>
> It's a commonly used TLA standing for Data Flow Graph, which
> accompanies the CFG (Control Flow Graph). Both are necessary
> for register allocation
At 01:04 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
Does anyone have a precompiled parrot binary for Win32, on an ftp or web
site somewhere?
I'm practicing writing parrot assembler, and I'd like to be able to test
my evil creations on my own machine, without having to go through the
rigmarole of
If memory serves me right, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
>
> I suppose if there isn't a windows binary out there, I could try
> downloading and installing a C compiler (gcc? djgpp?) and then
> compiling my own parrot... but I don't want to do that much work!
>
Cygwin ? ... I'm not using windows but
--- Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedop, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) { ... }
>
> Yikes. And I thought we were trying to get *away* from line noise?
>
> Seriously, can't we use something rather prettier, like this?
>
> method x($me: $req, $o
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a multi?
if not what happens?
Richard
-
> The problem is that if you have multiple optional or named
> parameters, things start getting uncomfortably prolix, and default
> values end up a long way from their owners:
>
> multi substr(Str $str, $from is optional = $CALLER::_,
> $len is optional = Inf, $new is optional) {...
So now putting C-style comments in p6 should be about as easy as
macro circumfix:/*...*/ () is parsed(/.*?/) { "" }
That's so easy I might even *use* it, lol
Not that I've ever really felt the need with # and =doc/=cut.
But just to make sure I'm getting it:
macro circumfix:... () is pa
Will infix operators be allowed to be macros instead of subs?
They'd be kinda necessary for infix operators for which standard sub
conventions are insufficient and need to diddle the parse tree instead,
such as short-circuiting operators.
It would also allow Damien's original <~ operator (R2L m
Oh goody, two with one blow:
--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > : > multi foo (@a is Array of int) {...}
> > : >
> > : > my int @a = baz(); # is Array of int
> > : > my @b = baz(); # is Array of Scalar
> > : >
> > : > foo(@a);# @a is typed correc
Piers Cawley wrote:
Coroutines end and DFG
Nobody explained what DFG stands for.
It's a commonly used TLA standing for Data Flow Graph, which accompanies
the CFG (Control Flow Graph). Both are necessary for register allocation.
leo
Damian Conway:
# Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > method x ($me: $req, ?$opt, +$namedop, *%named, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) { ... }
# >
# > Yikes. And I thought we were trying to get *away* from
# line noise?
# > :^)
# >
# > Seriously, can't we use something rather prettier, like this?
# >
# > metho
Simon Cozens:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
# > we have a definitive
# ^^
# Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
It *is* definitive, Simon...at least this week. ;^)
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> we have a definitive
^^
Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, "bullet"); }
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030309
Ooh look, it's another of those Perl 6 Summaries where Piers tries to
work a gratuitous reference to Leon Brocard into a summary of what's
been happening to the Perl 6 development process this week.
As tradition dictates, we'll start
=head1 C and Continuations
Here's another "blend known paradigms" document from Luke. The idea
is to rethink C to provide even more information than it
already does, in an elegant way. To get us started:
As in Perl 5, the C function will return information about
the dynamic context of t
The scripts were written by Zach Lipton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and I believe he is still
maintaining things.
-J
--
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> I'm not sure who owns the TD scripts, but I'd be willing to try to get
> them working again if someone could point me at them (and how to
TLA = Three Letter Acronymn
- Original Message -
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: This week's Perl 6 Summary [
I'm not sure who owns the TD scripts, but I'd be willing to try to get
them working again if someone could point me at them (and how to get the
appropriate accounts, etc)
--Josh
At 14:29 on 03/10/2003 PST, Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The tinderbox is all in flames.
>
>
# New Ticket Created by Bruce Gray
# Please include the string: [perl #21547]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21547 >
In config/gen/makefiles.pl, Perl is called with "inplace editing" like so:
system(
John Siracusa wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default
On Wed 12 Mar, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
> > Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
> > dropped into the great Pachinko game of multimethod-dispatchery.
>From A6:
> I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
> subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
> handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
> than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default be to have wr
Richard Proctor asked:
> If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
>
> sub factorial(int $a) {...}
>
> then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
> non-integer form:
>
> multi factorial(num $a) {...}
>
> Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a m
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> These are basically all just two edge-cases. Namely:
>
> @var <== LIST
> and:
> LIST ==> @var
>
Have you considered:
LIST ==> @var.operator:=
LIST ==> @var.STOREARRAY
LIST ==> @var.how_do_i_spell_the_assignment_method
?
Various folks have suggested that the default assignment syntax:
sub foo(?$bar is copy = 1) {...}
be considered merely a shorthand for something like:
sub foo(?$bar is copy is default(1)) {...}
thereby allowing:
sub foo(?$bar is default(1) is copy ) {...}
and hence (mirabile dictu
The effect of a macro is lexical; but "the name may be installed in
either a package or a lexical scope". If the name is installed in a
class, can it be invoked via a variable of that class?
Example (SQL query integrated via macro):
my Database $db = MySqlDatabase.connect(...);
$db.select *
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:18 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Various folks have suggested that the default assignment syntax:
sub foo(?$bar is copy = 1) {...}
be considered merely a shorthand for something like:
sub foo(?$bar is copy is default(1)) {...}
I don't know...maybe I'm worry
Will it be possible in perl6 to overload multis on the const-ness of a
parameter, like C++ does? For instance,
multi getX(Foo $self:) returns Int {...} #const version
multi getX(Foo $self: is rw) returns Int is rw {...} #non-const version
If getX were called on a const Foo object the
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
dropped into the great Pachinko game of multimethod-dispatchery. By
default, if no winning multi appears, the call falls
Joe Gottman wrote:
Will it be possible in perl6 to overload multis on the const-ness of a
parameter, like C++ does? For instance,
multi getX(Foo $self:) returns Int {...} #const version
multi getX(Foo $self: is rw) returns Int is rw {...} #non-const version
That second one would have to
Michael Lazzaro asked:
Are you concerned about having an C spelling at all
No, not at all. It really is a shorthand for a trait, after all, so it should
almost certainly have a trait name. Besides, C is probably needed
for non-parameter variables too:
my %nickname is default("Bruce") = (
John Williams wrote:
Have you considered:
LIST ==> @var.operator:=
LIST ==> @var.STOREARRAY
LIST ==> @var.how_do_i_spell_the_assignment_method
That's probably:
LIST ==> @var.STORE(*);
which is still pretty darn ugly. ;-)
Damian
> I don't know that that means we couldn't have an C
> spelling, though. And C (or something easier to spell)
> for the * case. If we have C and C, I think
> it would be appropriate to have names for the other linenoise as
well.
I'd say "please".
> (Percentage of me that really cares: 20%.
So now putting C-style comments in p6 should be about as easy as
macro circumfix:/*...*/ () is parsed(/.*?/) { "" }
Yep.
But just to make sure I'm getting it:
macro circumfix:... () is parsed(/.*?/) {
"\n# much ranting deleted here . . . .\n"
}
will actually work? :)
Yes. Though you
Austin Hastings wrote:
You're treading dangerously close to the S&M line there...
Sure. That's exactly what types are for.
Does it make sense to say C for this stuff?
I'd much rather that simply using typed params invoked type stricture.
Damian
Larry wrote:
: > multi foo (@a is Array of int) {...}
: >
: > my int @a = baz(); # is Array of int
: > my @b = baz(); # is Array of Scalar
: >
: > foo(@a);# @a is typed correctly, so OK
: > foo(@b);# @b is not explicitly typed as C; OK or FAIL?
I dunno. I can argue that i
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 08:41 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
Almost makes you wish for those backwards declarations from C that
computer scientists always gripe about, eh? :^) Well, what about
this?
multi substr(Str $str, $from = $CALLER::_ is optional, $len =
Inf is optional, $new is optional)
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:42 AM, Richard Proctor wrote:
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up
the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original decla
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:42 AM, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
> >
> > sub factorial(int $a) {...}
> >
> > then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick
> up
> > the
> > non-inte
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
But you can't wrap multi-ness, as far as I can tell.
[A6]
And it happens that the multimethod dispatch is smart enough to find
the ordinary single-invocant sysread method, even though it may not
have been explicitly declared a multim
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > But you can't wrap multi-ness, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > [A6]
> > And it happens that the multimethod dispatch is smart enough to
> find
> > the ordinary single-invocant sys
43 matches
Mail list logo
