Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that having a special
> 'tailinvoke' operator which simply reuses the current return
> continuation instead of creating a new one would make for rather faster
> tail calls than fetching the current continuation out
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:13:37 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:32 PM -0700 9/22/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
>>On Sep 22, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>>*) There are three things that can be in a namespace: Another
>>>namespace, a method or sub, and a variable.
>>>
>>>*) The names of name
From: Edward Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Subject: Re: S5 updated
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ok,
I'm going to answer both you and Luke in the same message to save tim
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #31695]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31695 >
I'm getting a crash if I try to run parrot on libpcre.imc. The debugger
output is s
With:
.sub foo
.include "interpinfo.pasm"
$P0 = interpinfo .INTERPINFO_CURRENT_SUB
$S0 = $P0# "foo"
we can now extract the current subroutine's name or print it like in the
tests t/pmc/sub_{74,75}.pasm. I've implemted the get_string() vtable for
Sub PMCs - could be get_repr() too, dun
Christian Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am the french teacher who is trying to initiate my students to the
> pleaasure of assembly language using Parrot.
Great. Thanks for the note.
leo
Hello,
I've been wondering for some time about this, so I thought, why not ask.
The thing is, I've been playing a few times with (Parrot, but also .NET)
compilers, and my conclusion was that the most difficult part is getting
assignments
right (when by value, when by ref, etc.). (that is, any cons
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:03:46PM +0200, KJ wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been wondering for some time about this, so I thought, why not ask.
>
> The thing is, I've been playing a few times with (Parrot, but also .NET)
> compilers, and my conclusion was that the most difficult part is getting
> assi
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #31706]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31706 >
Something in parrot's letting strstart and bufstart get out of sync
for some strings
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 10:03, KJ wrote:
> So, my question is, why would one need lexical pads anyway (why are they
> there)?
They are there so that variables can be found by name in a lexically
scoped way. One example, in Perl 5, of this need is:
my $foo = 1;
return sub { $foo ++
At 7:58 AM -0700 9/24/04, Dan Sugalski (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #31706]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31706 >
Something in parrot's letting strs
At 4:03 PM +0200 9/24/04, KJ wrote:
So, my question is, why would one need lexical pads anyway (why are
they there)?
Pads do three things. First, as has been pointed out, they store
sufficient metadata so string evals (that's where code gets compiled
on the fly and accesses the surrounding envir
Jeff Clites wrote:
(B
(B> On Sep 23, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
(B>
(B>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
(B>>
(B
(B just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
(B number to a string. Two algorithmically different t
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting a crash if I try to run parrot on libpcre.imc. The debugger
> output is shown below. The crash occurs because
> imcc/instructions.c:ins_writes2() is somehow passed a type t == 'K'.
Oops and ins->opnum == -1 too. While I can't reproduce the
On Sep-24, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 10:03, KJ wrote:
>
> > So, my question is, why would one need lexical pads anyway (why are they
> > there)?
>
> They are there so that variables can be found by name in a lexically
> scoped way. One example, in Perl 5, of this need is:
>
>
On Sep 24, 2004, at 8:07 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 10:03, KJ wrote:
So, my question is, why would one need lexical pads anyway (why are
they
there)?
They are there so that variables can be found by name in a lexically
scoped way. One example, in Perl 5, of this need is:
Edward Peschko wrote:
Well, there re two responses to the "that's not a common thing to want to do":
1) its not a common thing to want to do because its not a useful thing to do.
2) its not a common thing to want to do because its too damn difficult to do.
I'd say that #2 is what holds. *Ever
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
> Actually, that raises a good point: Should "3 foo" convert to number 3,
> or should it convert to C<3 but remainder(" foo")> ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
Juerd
At 8:37 AM +0200 9/24/04, Christian Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
I am the french teacher who is trying to initiate my students to the
pleaasure of assembly language using Parrot.
For those who car read french, you can check our site :
http://www.dil.univ-mrs.fr/lic.ue.html#L-O3-5
I can't read french,
Juerd wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
Actually, that raises a good point: Should "3 foo" convert to number 3,
or should it convert to C<3 but remainder(" foo")> ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
I assume that replacing the valu
Okay, so we've got two points of dispute:
1) Jeff doesn't think the sigil should be part of the variable name
2) Both Jeff and Jonathan have pointed out that languages we care
about *do* have a combined function/varname store. (Though class
names/namespaces seem to be separate)
For point #1, I t
Pardon if this has already come up. I only found one prior reference in
my search.
There's a section in S5 about "Matching against non-strings", but it
really only addresses matching against strings that are retrieved
dynamically from tied values.
Some operations in a rule operate on string value
According to Dan Sugalski:
> I'm fine with mashing functions and variables into a single big mass...
Me too (FWIW). And I think it'll work.
PS: I've got the Glob Stick where I can reach it.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"I don't really think it is
All~
I personally thing that the suggestion of providing a base namespace
PMC and letting each language create their own if they want overrides
is a really nice idea. I think the base one should have the maximum
number of distinct subspaces with special functions to access them
(i.e. function, va
According to Matt Fowles:
> I personally thing that the suggestion of providing a base namespace
> PMC and letting each language create their own if they want overrides
> is a really nice idea.
I can't speak to that. However:
> I think the base one should have the maximum number of distinct
> su
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:36:43AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> Output would be a step by step graph of the internal logic used to match
> / not match the string. I'd break the RE up into the same pieces the
> Engine does, then show how that subrule matched char a, then char b, but
> failed to matc
Rod Adams writes:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Running a regular expression in reverse has IMO the best potential
> > for making regexes transparent - you graphically see how they work
> > and what they match.
>
> I have to disagree here.
For what it's worth, I agree with your disagreement --
oolong:~/research/parrot coke$ uname -a
Darwin oolong 7.5.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.5.0: Thu Aug 5 19:26:16 PDT 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.7.21.obj~3/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
oolong:~/research/parrot coke$ grep LINK Makefile
LINK = c++
LINKFLAGS = -L/usr/local/lib -g
Here's the m
> >>>just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
> >>>number to a string. Two algorithmically different things as well,
> >>>but they'd damn-well better be exact inverses of the
> >>>other.
> >>
> >>But they're not:
> >>
> >> " 3 foo" --> 3 --> "3"
> >
> >I'd say that tha
Does Parrot make it easy to have different versions of a language
engine, say Perl, loaded at the same time?
See also the IRC snippet pasted below (irrelevant conversation removed).
I'm not on the list; please CC.
Juerd
* Juerd hopes Perl 6 will provide an easy portable mechanism for having
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> ...
> (Though class names/namespaces seem to be separate)
> ...
I think Guido might have made things a bit harder to separate out than you
anticipate, unless I misread you. It appears that modules and classes are
also imported into the sam
At 7:51 PM -0400 9/24/04, Jonathan Polley wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
...
(Though class names/namespaces seem to be separate)
...
I think Guido might have made things a bit harder to separate out than you
anticipate, unless I misread you. It appears that module
At 11:53 PM +0200 9/24/04, Juerd wrote:
Does Parrot make it easy to have different versions of a language
engine, say Perl, loaded at the same time?
Nope. Modules yes, but perl versions (or any language version) no. I
suppose we could, but I'm not sure it'd work as well as you might
like, since m
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 12:36, Jeff Clites wrote:
> Ha, you're example is actually wrong (but tricked me for a second).
> Here's a simpler case to demonstrate that you can't look up lexicals by
> name (in Perl5):
You are, of course, correct. If I'd been ignorant of that in the first
place, this w
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:58, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Ok, ok, I'll give you that point ... lets call them 'intimately related' and
> leave it at that... if you say "3 foo" and your algorithm goes:
>
> "3 foo" => 3 => "2"
>
> then you know something is desperately wrong.
Yes, and you know
On Sep 24, 2004, at 6:51 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 12:36, Jeff Clites wrote:
Ha, you're example is actually wrong (but tricked me for a second).
Here's a simpler case to demonstrate that you can't look up lexicals
by
name (in Perl5):
You are, of course, correct. If I'd been ig
At 7:28 PM -0700 9/24/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Sep 24, 2004, at 6:51 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
However, the point is still sound, and that WILL work in P6, as I
understand it.
Hmm, that's too bad--it could be quite an opportunity for
optimization, if you could use-and-discard lexical information a
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:32 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:28 PM -0700 9/24/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Sep 24, 2004, at 6:51 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
However, the point is still sound, and that WILL work in P6, as I
understand it.
Hmm, that's too bad--it could be quite an opportunity for
optimization, i
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:04:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:51 PM -0400 9/24/04, Jonathan Polley wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:52 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> (Though class names/namespaces seem to be separate)
>>> ...
>>
>>I think Guido might have made things a bit harder
39 matches
Mail list logo
