Bernhard Schmalhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been looking into integer keyed access to the Iterator PMC.
Applied - finally as the patch seems to match Dan's iterator proposal.
Thanks,
leo
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #30294]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30294 >
All~
This patch implements the better allocation scheme of doubling array
capacity,
On Jun 14, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Parrot provides code points for all graphemes, even for those
character sets/encodings which don't inherently do so. Most sets that
have variable-length encodings use an escape sequence scheme--the
value of the first byte in a character determines wh
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *) We consider ways to make slices. I can see ops, or I can see basic
> functions. Either is fine, depends on how often the things are used.
I'll start from the end of the proposal. What about just extending the
keyed syntax:
Px = Py[0] # ke
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> t/pmc/threads..dubious
> Test returned status 3 (wstat 768, 0x300)
> DIED. FAILED tests 6, 8-9
> If I run just this test under the harness, or if I run it standalone, it
> passes. eg
Do they succeed, when running standalone with --g
Nick Glencross wrote:
Guys,
Although my wife is totally underwhelmed by this, here's a nice SDL
demo. It needs some more work, but I won't get time to visit it again in
the next week.
Looks really great.
Should that go into CVS as an example?
leo
At 3:10 PM -0700 6/15/04, Matt Fowles (via RT) wrote:
This patch implements the better allocation scheme of doubling array
capacity, for the Resizable*Array pmcs. Also, includes a slight change
to tests that will test a wider range of behavior.
While doubling has some issues when an array gets big
At 11:25 AM +0200 6/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*) We consider ways to make slices. I can see ops, or I can see basic
functions. Either is fine, depends on how often the things are used.
I'll start from the end of the proposal. What about just extending t
Okay, now that we've got the bytecode-visible stuff specified, I want
to spec the internals some, and start getting things migrated over to
it. (This should allow us to make ICU optional as well, for folks
that only want ASCII/Latin-x/EBCDIC enabled)
Once again, we're going with vtables, like t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A week later, I've finally checked the new SDL Parrot code into CVS.
Nice one Chromatic. I'm not sure whether the datafile ever did make it onto the
mailing list! I got it by email, but Google doesn't seem to have it. Perhaps it looked
like spam or a virus...
I'll
I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
where P1 ends up with the lesser (or greater) of P2 and P3.
On the one hand this'd make some of the code I'm generating now
simpler, but on the other i
At 4:30 PM + 6/16/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we want a Normalization function here as well. If you have that
you can use a binary compare (at least for eq/ne).
Yeah, we probably do. The question is always "Which normalization"
since there are at least four for Unicode and two for ISO-20
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which reminds me--we need to have a syntax to distinguish between
key types.
Perl already gives us two of the three:
Px[Iy]
Px{Sy}
For the third, I suggest we extend the analogy:
Px
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has a
Dan Sugalski wrote:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Opinions?
Subroutine, man, subroutine. NCI if you need it to be fast.
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
At 5:07 PM + 6/16/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, but I believe that at least Unicode has one of the four that
they suggest
be used for non-locale specific comparisons (canonical decomposition form).
So pick that one for the core and provide the others (if necessary) as library
functions.
At 10:06 AM -0700 6/16/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which reminds me--we need to have a syntax to distinguish between key types.
Perl already gives us two of the three:
Px[Iy]
Px{Sy}
For the third, I suggest we extend the analogy:
Px
Except it breaks really re
At 10:08 AM -0700 6/16/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Opinions?
Subroutine, man, subroutine. NCI if you need it to be fast.
Feh on a subroutine--it's three or four ops with a few branches.
Which was the point--it eliminates the branches
Do we want a Normalization function here as well. If you have that you can use a
binary compare (at least for eq/ne).
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The charset vtable needs to handle get/set grapheme, get/set
> substring, up/down/titlecase, and (possibly) comparison. Charsets
> also ha
Yeah, but I believe that at least Unicode has one of the four that they suggest
be used for non-locale specific comparisons (canonical decomposition form).
So pick that one for the core and provide the others (if necessary) as library
functions.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 7:48 PM +0200 6/16/04, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 10:06 AM -0700 6/16/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which reminds me--we need to have a syntax to distinguish between
key types.
Perl already gives us two of the three:
Px[
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 10:06 AM -0700 6/16/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>Which reminds me--we need to have a syntax to distinguish between key types.
>>
>>Perl already gives us two of the three:
>> Px[Iy]
>> Px{Sy}
>>
>>For the third, I
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #30314]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=30314 >
This patch changes the languages/cola/Makefile from a manually-generated
one to one
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
> non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
> min P1, P2, P3
> max P1, P2, P3
Which cmp operation of the three we have? I smell opcode bloat.
> On the one hand this'd make some of
At 8:24 PM +0200 6/16/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm wondering if it'd be useful enough to be worthwhile to have
non-flowcontrol min/max ops. Something like:
min P1, P2, P3
max P1, P2, P3
Which cmp operation of the three we have? I smell opcode b
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Yeah, but given that this code will be generated by compilers 90+% of
the time... the assembly generation and parsing of the assembly's easier
with the postfix notation.
My understanding is that compilers will generate an AST, not textual
PIR. Thus, we are looking for a nota
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Looks really great.
Should that go into CVS as an example?
Obviously I'd be honoured if it were, and this would prompt me to
revisit the backface culling.
My original plan was to sort all the faces from front to back and draw
them in this order. Then I can create a data s
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> So, given that, should plain scalars act as iterators holding a single
> value and implement the iterator protocol?
That'd be messy if two things tried to take an iterator over the same scalar
as the same time. On the other hand if it created an iterator
27 matches
Mail list logo
