On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:02:13AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:37:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: >: Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-05-12 17:30 (-0400):
: >: > I like C<...> I like it a LOT. In fact, I'm partial to the idea that
: >: > it should be usab
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
>
> sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) {
Ooh, "doublequotelike" sounds so much 1984.
(Moreover it doesn't describe accurately the reality, which allows to
use different delimiter
On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 04:30, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
> >
> > sub s (Regex $pat, Str $replace, bool ?$i) is doublequotelike returns(Str) {
>
> Ooh, "doublequotelike" sounds so much 1984.
> (Moreover it doesn't des
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:37:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-05-12 17:30 (-0400):
: > I like C<...> I like it a LOT. In fact, I'm partial to the idea that
: > it should be usable anywhere
:
: I agree. It'd make even more of my pseudo code (#perlhelp and
:
I am finally going to teach myself C, so I should be
fairly quiet for a while (i.e. no more
incomprehensible ramblings of a mad man).
I did want to take this chance to explain some things
about where Cygwin is right now.
1. config/init/hints/cygwin.pl needs to have link =>
'c++', added to it.
2
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's almost impossible to do
> recursive descent when you allow for defining new operator precedence
> levels on the fly as Perl 6 does.
>
> : Operator precedence can be done in
> : a recdescent grammar straightforward
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:26:32AM -0500, Abhijit A. Mahabal wrote:
:
: On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's almost impossible to do
: > recursive descent when you allow for defining new operator precedence
: > levels on the fly as Perl 6 does.
:
At 9:35 AM -0700 5/13/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:26:32AM -0500, Abhijit A. Mahabal wrote:
:
: On Wed, 12 May 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's almost impossible to do
: > recursive descent when you allow for defining new operator preceden
On Wednesday 12 May 2004 22:16, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> We still need to consider what's an opcode and what not. We are going to
> blow reasonable code size soon.
Yes. Thats why I've added them to experimental.ops and not to math.ops
I'll add a note that it contains ops for that no decision is mad
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, so I'm working on redoing the events document based on the
critiques from folks so far. (Which have been quite helpful) I should
have a second draft of the thing soon.
It does, though, sound like we might want an alternate name for this
stuff. While event is the right
Dan Sugalski writes:
> And personally I'd be happy to do violence to the dragon book. (Not
> that it's *entirely* horrible, as I occasionally need to prop doors
> open or shim a broken table leg temporarily...)
>
> But, anyway, snipping out the rest of this stuff...
>
> The big problem is that
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> The big problem is that I don't know *how* to implement a mixed-type
> parser generator. I'm not big on parsers in general, so I'm mostly
> stuck with the literature if I need to write one from scratch.
I have been thinking the following about what lar
All~
I think Page already has a different meaning in computers, namely a page
of memory. This one might be going to far afield for names. For what it
is worth, I support event as the name.
Matt
James Mastros wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, so I'm working on redoing the events document based on
Matt Fowles wrote:
> I think Page already has a different meaning in computers,
> namely a page of memory.
Not to mention a web page.
> For what it is worth, I support event as the name.
Being as I think I'm largely responsible for the sense that the name
needs to be changed, I should point ou
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 01:01:12PM -0500, Abhijit A. Mahabal wrote:
: I have been thinking the following about what larry said earlier. Is this
: what you meant, larry?
:
: $grammar = q{
: class_defn: "class" block .. etc (normal top-down stuff)
: ...
: term: { call Parse::Yapp o
At 12:22 PM -0700 5/13/04, Larry Wall wrote:
I'd take the latter approach myself, since in any event it will
probably need tweaks that are foreign to whatever tool you choose.
In particular, the fact that Perl 6 uses string comparison rather than
numeric comparison to do precedence levels is going
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 03:27:43PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: I think the prudent thing to do there, since we're going to very
: rarely be adding new operators, is to assign the darned things real
: precedence numbers which get dynamically set. Add a new operator
: between two others and every
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:22:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> No, you still have the four basic actions. Subparsing is all hidden in
> the lexer.
Hence why the lexer in Perl 5 is 8000 lines long ;-)
--
Wesley Crusher gets beaten up by his classmates for being a smarmy git,
and consequently has
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:41:54PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
: On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:22:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > No, you still have the four basic actions. Subparsing is all hidden in
: > the lexer.
:
: Hence why the lexer in Perl 5 is 8000 lines long ;-)
Well, actually, the lexe
On 12 May 2004, at 17:38, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
It's Parrot telling you that something happened.
Squawk?
Mike
On May 12, 2004, at 1:26 PM, Ron Blaschke wrote:
I have finally sorted out the details of the flags stuff, which I will
present below. Any comments are highly appreciated. Be warned: I am
going
to implements this if there are no objections. ;-)
- Targets "shared" and "static" are provided, to b
Jeff Clites wrote:
Alternatively, we could just parse embed.h -- all and only symbols
defined there should be exported. (I believe that's the plan.)
Nope. Any symbol in a file included from embed.h and outside of an "#if
defined(PARROT_IN_CORE)" is fair game for embedders. See interpreter.h
fo
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jeff Clites wrote:
> > - When building / using a shared parrot the compiler macro
> > PARROT_LIB_DYNAMIC will be defined, for static PARROT_LIB_STATIC
>
> What will these be used for? Traditionally, there aren't compile-time
> difference when building a static v. dynamic libra
At 5:47 PM -0700 5/13/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Jeff Clites wrote:
Alternatively, we could just parse embed.h -- all and only symbols
defined there should be exported. (I believe that's the plan.)
Nope. Any symbol in a file included from embed.h and outside of an
"#if defined(PARROT_IN
At 5:23 PM -0700 5/13/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
[Most commentary snipped, as it's dead-on]
- When building / using a shared parrot the compiler macro
PARROT_LIB_DYNAMIC will be defined, for static PARROT_LIB_STATIC
What will these be used for? Traditionally, there aren't
compile-time difference when
25 matches
Mail list logo
