The current scheme of PMC instantiation works mostly fine for scalars
and other simple types, but it's a bit limited. It allows only one
initializer (see init_pmc in docs/pdds/pdd02_vtables.pod).
Further PMC and "real object" instantiation shouldn't differ in syntax.
Here is a summary what we cu
Fog around integer PMC semantics is lifting, so we should start bringing
classes/*.pmc into shape.
Currently PerlInt is the most complete implementation of the proposed
semantics. Some vtable methods like C still need work, though.
Anyway, I'd do:
1) cp perlint.pmc integer.pmc
2) pmclass PerlIn
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:03:07PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Okay, as has been suggested, the type order for numbers should go:
>> (so int+bignum gets a bignum, but int+int will be an int if the
>> result fits, or a bignum if it doesn't), and error o
On Aug-22, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
> > language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
> > that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
> > tim
Steve Fink wrote:
Right now, I always compile to the same subroutine name "_regex", and
... But is this safe to rely on, or will
it later become an error to override a global subroutine?
I think yes. Overriding a subroutine should be possible.
I can store some global counter that makes it generate
--- Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - I'm deleting, recreating and repopulating the rrd
> files each time, but this way I'm free regarding
> Joshua's way of parsing
I am not exactly happy with it myself. I wanted to
get something out there so people could comment on it.
The first co
When I came in to work on Monday, there were NCI tests
failing - a lot of them. I asked around in IRC and it
sounded like other people were having problems too, so
I figured I would wait around because people, to
include Dan, were looking into it.
I haven't heard any recent grumbling so I am wond
At 10:54 AM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, being clear here (I hope, though recent history suggests
otherwise) what I want is the API that the GC/DOD system presents to
the rest of the engine. This includes the functions you call to
trigger a D
At 9:06 PM -0500 8/25/04, Peter Behroozi wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 13:03 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, as has been suggested, the type order for numbers should go:
int->bignum->float
owing to the fact that floats are lossy and nasty. I'm not entirely
sure I agree, given that floats ar
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:48:03 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:53 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The big question is whether being clever and producing the tightest
> >> type is worth the t
At 10:56 AM -0400 8/26/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:48:03 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:53 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The big question is whether being clever and pr
Bitops. Fun. Note that we are specifically leaving strings out of
this for the moment, and restricting ourselves to
bool/int/bignum/float pmcs.
All bit operations pad the shorter value with 0 bits on the high bit end.
Bools are considered to have one bit. 1 if true, 0 if not.
Left shifts of inte
At 5:24 PM +0200 8/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ a slightly modified version of this proposal made it into CVS in the
meantime ]
At 10:54 AM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
DOD_WRITE_BARRIER(interp, aggregate, old_item, new_item)
For hash keys w
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> t/pmc/nci.t28 716835 28 80.00% 1-27
strange.
> t/pmc/perlhash.t1 256361 2.78% 20
Only that one is supposed to fail.
leo
Noticed this on another list and figured it might be a p6i kind of thing
...
"Fine-grained concurrency primitives from Erlang now available in
Python. Haven't used Erlang myself, though I've read the papers. Looks
kind of like a bastard offspring of Linda and more explicit sync
constructions /
At 5:26 PM +0200 8/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
t/pmc/nci.t28 716835 28 80.00% 1-27
strange.
Yeah. I've got NCI stuff failing all over the place for me on Linux,
though not in the test suite, which is frustrating. It's GC related
so far
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:11:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> is going to be an issue), and bignums rotate assuming they're binary
> numbers some multiple of 8 bits (minimum 64 bits).
The "some multiple" being the next largest power of 256 that contains the
value, or the width that the value h
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #31346]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31346 >
This patch adds some test for the Undef PMC.
The vtable function 'get_bool' i
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > t/pmc/nci.t28 716835 28 80.00%
> 1-27
>
> strange.
>
> > t/pmc/perlhash.t1 256361 2.78% 20
>
> Only that one is supposed to fail.
>
> leo
This might help shed so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Sunday 22 August 2004 14:06, Tels wrote:
> Moin,
> Ugh, seems the gnupg signing screwed up the mime containers or something
> like that: I apologize for the garbled post.
>
> Here is the text again:
>
> Moin,
>
> this is something that I had a long time
At 9:40 PM +0100 8/26/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:11:52PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
is going to be an issue), and bignums rotate assuming they're binary
numbers some multiple of 8 bits (minimum 64 bits).
The "some multiple" being the next largest power of 256 that contai
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:10:59 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:56 AM -0400 8/26/04, John Siracusa wrote:
> >Why make a stop in 32-bit land at all in that case? If the system supports
> >64-bit ints, why not use them for everything right up until you promote to
> >BigNum? Is
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:18:54PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Good question. The size of the bignum, if it's been declared to have
> a maximum size, or the maximum size that it's been, though that
> doesn't feel particularly right.
That feels particularly bad if language implementations happe
Dan writes:
> >The "some multiple" being the next largest power of 256 that contains the
> >value, or the width that the value happens to be stored in at that time?
> >(Based on previous values assigned to that PMC which may have widened it)
>
> Good question. The size of the bignum, if it's been
--- Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Enhancements:
> 1. Should be platform independent now
> 2. Much greater control using ini configuration
> 3. Output is "pretty"
> 4. Lots of bugs squashed (probably more introduced)
I found a few and have erradicated them. I also added
some new
Nicholas writes:
> I can't really see how you can rotate a bignum that doesn't have a width
> already associated with it.
Maybe that's the answer: unless a bignum has a limit set on it,
rotate is shift ('we're just rotating a really, really large number...')
F.
I got this error, which I traced down to accidentally calling is() with
a hashref as the third argument, where the name should have been:
use Test::More 'no_plan';
is(1,1,{});
This happens because Test::Builder tries to assign the name to a key of
a shared hash. This simple case demonstr
At 10:43 PM +0100 8/26/04, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:18:54PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Good question. The size of the bignum, if it's been declared to have
a maximum size, or the maximum size that it's been, though that
doesn't feel particularly right.
That feels particul
On Thu 26 Aug 2004 20:05, Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Moin,
>
> On Sunday 22 August 2004 14:06, Tels wrote:
> > Moin,
> > Ugh, seems the gnupg signing screwed up the mime containers or something
> > like that: I apologize for the garbled post.
> >
> >
29 matches
Mail list logo
