Wow. I'm impressed you got anywhere near this far! Your work sounds
very promising, a great way to validate Parrot's value proposition.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
| And there is of course the question, if we should really be
| "bug"-compatible
|
| >>> False
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 9:18 PM +0200 7/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
[ I've to come back to my proposed scheme ]
>>No. The whole frame is the continuation. Its holding exactly the
>>interpreter state at the time of calling into the sub. Including
>>registers, which makes reg
Clark C. Evans wrote:
Wow. I'm impressed you got anywhere near this far! Your work sounds
very promising, a great way to validate Parrot's value proposition.
Thanks.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
|
| >>> False=42
But that's not a bug. If one assignes "42" to F
I have made some significant improvements to Parakeet since I last
"released" it, enough that I am now confident that it can become a
complete Parrot language that exposes all of the OO features of the VM.
So I'm calling it 0.1 with the anticipation that several more releases
will follow to finish
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: >2. Really core. This is the sort of "standard library". Just the most
: >essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: >probably include most of these, even in a "trimmed down" release, such
: >as an OS installer
:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: >2. Really core. This is the sort of "standard library". Just the most
: >essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: >probably include most of these, even in a "trimmed down" release, such
: >as
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:41:14PM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: >: >2. Really core. This is the sort of "standard library". Just the most
: >: >essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: >: >
