Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> should they be? I think they are covered by the statemente in
> pdd11 (... about the same level of access to Parrot
> that bytecode programs ...).
Please send a patch. Thanks.
> Regards
> Mattia
leo
Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> this patch implements Parrot_call_method (with test).
This code seems to duplicate functions from F and
returning results from the call is missing.
If should be easy to wrap Parrot_run_meth* and use existing code.
leo
Ozgun Erdogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all -
> I don't know if this is the right list for this email, but it seemed
> like the most relevant one.
You might have a look at the roadmap on [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
news:perl.ponie.dev.
> Currently, we're using perl-5.6.1 and are having problems w
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ passing arguments to compilers ]
> ... So why does the compile op exist?
Your concerns are all valid. The compiler interface needs extension as
well as some cleanup. This is true for compilers written in C (loadable
as shared libs) and for compilers writte
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:09:46 +0200 Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > this patch implements Parrot_call_method (with test).
>
> This code seems to duplicate functions from F and
> returning results from the call is missing.
On Aug-28, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> We dynamically load libraries. Whee! Yay, us. We need a set of
> semantics defined and an API to go with them so we can meaningfully
> and reliably work with them.
Hm. Today I was working with the current implementation of this stuff,
and uncovered a bunch of
On Aug-21, Mattia Barbon wrote:
>
> Hello,
> as promised with this patch:
>
> pmc2c2 ... --library foo --c pmc1.pmc pmc2.pmc pmc3.pmc ...
>
> outputs pmcX.c and pmc_pmcX.h as it did before, plus
> foo.c and pmc_foo.h containig a single Parrot_lib_foo_load
> that initialized vtables and MMD
At 9:36 PM + 8/29/04, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
> At 1:43 PM -0700 8/26/04, Bernhard Schmalhofer (via RT) wrote:
>This patch adds some test for the Undef PMC.
Forgot to actually attach the patch. I guess I was overexcited because
my telephone was working again, after five days of rad
At 5:57 PM -0700 8/28/04, Ozgun Erdogan wrote:
Hi all -
I don't know if this is the right list for this email, but it seemed
like the most relevant one.
Currently, we're using perl-5.6.1 and are having problems with memory
leaks - thanks to reference counting.
FWIW, you might want to try weak refer
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 we might need either two such calls (
Traits can be mean, but roles are "guarenteed"(=forced?) to play nice. But
suppose I have a role that wants to play nicer, by ensuring that
incorporating it in some class actually makes sense.
For example, it may want to ensure that the class has $.foo. (*)
I have a few questions:
1: Can this be
Abhijit Mahabal writes:
> Traits can be mean, but roles are "guarenteed"(=forced?) to play nice. But
> suppose I have a role that wants to play nicer, by ensuring that
> incorporating it in some class actually makes sense.
>
> For example, it may want to ensure that the class has $.foo. (*)
Let m
12 matches
Mail list logo
