Salzenberg wrote:
> ... any language using ":=" for assignment is doomed
> to obscurity.[*] It's a law of nature.
:-)
> (Ah, language design. :-))
No choice will satisfy everyone. So we each say our piece, then we
happily accept whatever the designer decides. No problem.
Regards,
Roger Brow
My view I understand the way it's currently done. I'm totally lost
at what's being proposed.
Joshua
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Roger Browne wrote:
> Salzenberg wrote:
>
> > ... any language using ":=" for assignment is doomed
> > to obscurity.[*] It's a law of nature.
>
> :-)
>
> > (Ah, langua
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Most importantly, I've proposed (but not mandated) a get_params flag
> called "READONLY", which automatically creates a read-only wrapper
> around a PMC parameter.
I'd use READONLY if it existed, though I can get by without it.
Regards,
Roger Browne
Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch until
now, and still doesn't. [1]
But, I have invented 2 more error flag bits [2], which can enable
stricter argument checking and the exception is catchable in the
subroutine itself now:
.include "errors.pasm"
errorson .P
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Hi,
I seem to be touching a bug related to writing compiled code.
pir_comp = compreg "PIR"
pbc_out = pir_comp(gen_pir)
fh = open output
print fh, pbc_out
close fh
On the print line, I get this error:-
directory_pack segment 'BYTECODE_EVAL_1' used size 158 but repor
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Hi,
I seem to be touching a bug related to writing compiled code.
pir_comp = compreg "PIR"
pbc_out = pir_comp(gen_pir)
fh = open output
print fh, pbc_out
close fh
On the print line, I get this error:-
directory_pack seg
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:49:36PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> OK, attached. If you run this as a PIR example, it works just fine. If
> you compile it to a PBC, then you get the error.
>
> $ parrot breaks2.pir example.dll
>
> $ parrot -o breaks2.pbc breaks2.pir
>
> $ parrot breaks2.p
On 11/30/05, Peter Sinnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:49:36PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > OK, attached. If you run this as a PIR example, it works just fine. If
> > you compile it to a PBC, then you get the error.
> >
> > $ parrot breaks2.pir example.dll
>
On 11/30/05, Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I seem to be touching a bug related to writing compiled code.
> >>
i can't recreate this bug (r10271).
D:\usr\local\parrot\trunk>parrot br
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
$ parrot -o breaks2.pbc breaks2.pir
$ parrot breaks2.pbc example.dll
directory_pack segment 'BYTECODE_EVAL_1' used size 158 but reported 160
Same answer as Jerry - works here on x86/linux.
Thanks,
Jonathan
leo
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:05:09AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Peter Sinnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:49:36PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > > OK, attached. If you run this as a PIR example, it works just fine. If
> > > you compile it to a PBC,
Hello,
Some time ago, I announced I would be writing a paper on the
architecture of Parrot. The paper will be about 10 pages (I think, at
this point), so there will be quite a high level of abstraction in order
to be able to fit all important info. (so no "class" diagrams, if one
could even s
On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:13:05PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
On Nov 29, 2005, at 21:36, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
I'm planning a flag day sometime in December. I'm also planning to
create a simple "handles most cases" translator.
That's a
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
> : Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less
> : entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like
> : doing so to say that in all earnestnes
On 11/29/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've reviewed pdd03 and brought it back from pdds/clip.
Thanks for reviving this document Chip. Way back when I implemented
some of the original lexical and calling code (like the scratchpad --
may it rest in peace). What is the status of t
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
> until now, and still doesn't. [1]
> [1] all PGE and PGE-based stuff is failing, when both are turned on
Exceptions should still be the default, even if PGE needs so
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:49:13PM -0500, Joshua Juran wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> >Excellent. Now if only I knew a good language for text filters...
>
> How about sed or awk?
Hm. If only we had a pir2xml, I could use XSLT.
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:00:36AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
> > until now, and still doesn't. [1]
> > [1] all PGE and PGE-based stuff is failing, when both ar
I have some clarification questions about the new pdd20 on lexical
variables -- likely stemming from my having been out of it for so
long. Also I am happy to send a patch to pdd20 capturing these
clarifications once I am sure I understand things correctly.
1. What is expected to be in P0 in:
.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:36:22PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: $fh = open '>>', 'quotefile' or fail;
: $fh.print <<'EOQ'
: I like witty sayings as much as the next guy, but wit can hurt when
: misdirected. If people want me to be machine for cranking out quote
: file fodder, I'll do my best. But
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:00:36AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
until now, and still doesn't. [1]
[1] all P
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Short answer: something like a ":last" flag would be excellent.
> >
> >Longer answer: In PGE, each rule is a parrot sub, and some rules
> >can be parameterized by various param
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:04:43AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:49:13PM -0500, Joshua Juran wrote:
: > On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: > >Excellent. Now if only I knew a good language for text filters...
: >
: > How about sed or awk?
:
: Hm. I
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Thus, we really ought to have a way to indicate that a rule (parrot
> >sub) can still be safely run even if called with more parameters
> >than it expects.
>
> Isn't this what :
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:41:59PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> private="REFCOUNTED"
> refcnt="1">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> Hope this helps
I sense a great evil. An evil that has been in abeyance since the
defeat of IP
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:39:58PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> At any rate, I found and fixed the two PGE subs that weren't declaring
> their (unused) parameters. All p6rules tests now appear to pass in
> r10278 with .PARROT_ERRORS_PARAM_COUNT_FLAG enabled.
Excellent.
Leo, would you be
Say, I just noticed this:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>.sub foo
> push_eh handler
> get_params '(0)', $P0# no .params yet - sorry
I remember at one point that get_params had to be the first opcode in
the sub. I didn't like that, but I
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> I have some clarification questions about the new pdd20 on lexical
> variables -- likely stemming from my having been out of it for so
> long. Also I am happy to send a patch to pdd20 capturing these
> clarifications once I am sure
On 11/30/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > I have some clarification questions about the new pdd20
>
> > 1. What is expected to be in P0 in:
> >.lex "$a", P0
>
> The ".lex" directive is compile-time only, and h
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2005-11-27
Another week passes. Another summary is written. Another sentence
remains steadfastly in the passive voice.
This week in perl6-compiler
Perl 5 tests for PGE::P5Regexp
Jerry Gay announced that he'd checked in a subset of perl 5.9.2's r
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:58:28PM -0800, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> On 11/30/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > > 2. Should we provide a way for a compiler to provide depths to the
> > > find_lex and store_lex ops
On Nov 30, 2005, at 18:04, Peter Sinnott wrote:
I was refering to the bug that said :
"Also label fixup handling is different so just don't compile
PIR files to PASM except for debugging"
That is a bug related to printing PIR -> PASM and compiling the output
(which is still avtive, but unch
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:57:26AM -0800, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> What is the status of the todo's mentioned in the BUGS section, who
> is working on these -- I am looking for a place to jump in. Also
> what is the status of the exception subsystem you mentioned?
All those TODOs are for design,
On 11/30/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What you're missing is that without the :outer information, Parrot
> wouldn't be able to decide *which* LexPads *should* be searched,
> either now (find_lex w/o LexEnv) or later (newclosure -> LexEnv).
Right and I see that this is consist
On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:39:58PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
At any rate, I found and fixed the two PGE subs that weren't declaring
their (unused) parameters. All p6rules tests now appear to pass in
r10278 with .PARROT_ERRORS_PARAM_COUN
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:45:49AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> While strict argument checking is and was always in the pdd03, it was
> not enforced and is only checkable since today. Therefore I'd like to
> keep current settings until after the release.
Works for me.
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EM
On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:16, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Say, I just noticed this:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
.sub foo
push_eh handler
get_params '(0)', $P0# no .params yet - sorry
I remember at one point that get_params had to be the fi
Piers~
On 11/30/05, The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, I hopped into a taxi (and I use the word hopped advisedly) and
> repaired straightway to King's Cross and thence home to Gateshead, where
> my discomfort was somewhat ameliorated by the distraction of preparin
38 matches
Mail list logo
