Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Not currently. There used to be a C opcode, but I've deleted
>>it, because I thought it's too dangerous.
> We really need to put it back in -- I knew it was dangerous, but it
> was necessary.
Yeah.
> ... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... For the most part, refcount O(n) time is
> proportional to the total number of objects created, while tracing
> O(n) time is proportional to the number of live objects.
Not quite. Refcount is O(work) or O(ptr-assign), which can be quite
different. Pyt
Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my sub get_book () of Hash of Array of Recipe {...}
> my num @nums = Array of num.new(:shape(3;3;3));
> Does Parrot's MMD carry this type information natively?
Neither of above. But:
multi sub foo(Int $a, Num $b) { ... }
aka
.sub foo @MUL
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:41:52AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Anyway Parrots MMD system depends on types. *If* the Perl6 compiler defines
> above array as
>
> cl = subclass "FixedFloatArray", "num_Array_shape_3_3_3"
Yes, that is what I am planning to emit for hierarchical and other
subtype
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
>
> sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
[...]
Just curious, why a sub and not a macro?
> That does pose a problem with:
>
> given $foo {
> until
> [leo - Mo 14. Feb 2005, 02:59:47]:
>
> Markus Amslser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now it's getting funny. I have written a tiny webserver in imc, that can
> > serve the parrot html documentation.
>
> Great, thanks. Some remarks:
> - served line endings should by "\r\n": lynx doesn't work wit
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 08:41 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Well, I presume that this could cover just the static case, which with
> the absence of types in Perl5/Ponie, would make it impossible to call
> multisubs.
I suppose then, that languages like Ponie or Python will end up needing
builtin o
On 4/29/05, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Autrijus had recommended beginning with src/Eval.hs and using the
> Haddock tool (http://haskell.org/haddock/). You are welcome to start
> right there.
I've made some headway in understanding Eval.hs, but it seems to rely
pretty heavily on AST
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
so we had junctions of Code references some days ago, what's with
junctions of Class and Role objects? :)
Could we see some code that shows
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
> innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what horrified David.
> What was troublesome was, I think:
> my Str|Int $x;
> $x.foo(); # r
Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd appreciate any gentle nudges towards the appropriate documentation,
> source file, or answer. Thanks!
I've now created a test for it in t/pmc/object-meths.t:
.sub go method
...
P2 = self
tailcallmethod "go"
.end
Works. B
At 11:12 PM -0400 4/29/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:23:47 -0400
At 10:55 PM -0400 4/28/05, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'm astounded. Do neither of you ever design data structures with
>
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 09:19 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> BTW shouldn't we really separate C and C? The latter
> would be overridable by user code, the former frees allocate memory.
I think that's wise and I thought that was the plan. Certainly for
*Struct PMCs I don't care when Parrot release
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
> >
> > sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
> [...]
>
> Just curious, why a sub and not a macro?
Didn't need a macro. statement:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> > I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
> > innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what horrified David.
> > What was troubl
At 7:50 PM +0200 4/30/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
just don't have any control
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
innocuous in that sense, and I don't think that is what horrif
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Matt Diephouse wrote:
-> (defun (square x) (* x x))
T
-> (square 2)
*** ERROR: SQUARE is not a function name
A quick follow-up - I've just checked in code implementing some primitive
macros, so if you wanted to give (defun ...) a go again, you should find
that it works now. (
At 9:19 AM +0200 4/30/05, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... We should probably make it 'safe' by forcing the
destroyed PMC to be an Undef after destruction, in case something was
still referring to it.
That sounds sane. Or maybe be: convert to an Undef and put
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:37:51AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Joshua Gatcomb writes:
> > The solution is formal parameters. The trouble is I
> > can't seem to find a good example in S04 that matches
> > what I am trying to do.
> >
> > while $ref() -> @array { ... }
>
> We're thinking at the mom
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:40:12 +0200
Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd appreciate any gentle nudges towards the appropriate documentation,
> source file, or answer. Thanks!
I've now created a test for it in t/pmc/obj
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> > > I do not see how any auto-threading occurs in that code. It is completely
> > > innocuous in that sense, and I don't think th
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:40:12AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd appreciate any gentle nudges towards the appropriate documentation,
> > source file, or answer. Thanks!
>
> I've now created a test for it in t/pmc/object-meths.t:
>
> .s
Hi!
Just a small question:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:37:21PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> If you don't have the destroy, and don't tag the object as needing
> expedited cleanup, then the finalizer *will* still be called. You
> just don't have any control over when its called.
>
Will there be
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 05:02:54PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> destroy. There's a vtable method that's called by the GC system when
> an object is no longer reachable from the root set.
Actually, not when, but some (indefinite) time after that has happened,
right?
> > And if so, what
> >would t
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:18:25 +0200
1) we now have a rather complete set of opcodes that return a new result
PMC, all prefixed by "n_", e.g.
n_add Px, Py, 1
n_abs Px, Py
. . .
2) Tests for all these opcodes are very welc
Autrijus Tang writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:37:51AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Joshua Gatcomb writes:
> > > The solution is formal parameters. The trouble is I
> > > can't seem to find a good example in S04 that matches
> > > what I am trying to do.
> > >
> > > while $ref() -> @array {
27 matches
Mail list logo
