Q: pdd21 - namespaces.pod

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
I've started implementing pdd21, but I got some more questions: $P0 = find_global $P1, $S0 $P0 = find_global $S0 Find the variable $S0 in $P1 or the current namespace. What about subroutines? Or should it return whatever is stored under the given name? Compile

Re: Q: pdd21 - namespaces.pod

2006-03-07 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:53:39PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > I've started implementing pdd21 "and there was much rejoicing" :-) Great questions, I know exactly why you're asking them, and I'm thinking I need to amend pdd21 to include some of the answers. > but I got some more questions: >

Re: Q: pdd21 - namespaces.pod

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Chip Salzenberg wrote: Thanks for the good questions, I hope this answers them. Thanks, yes. So I got a new one ;) In which namespaces should Parrot store PMC methods and multi subs? Currently Parrot occupies these namespaces: __parrot_core ... buitin multisubs like '__add' Integer

Re: Patch for nested macro support

2006-03-07 Thread Chip Salzenberg
Neat: It's backward-compatible and makes macros more useful, so file it under "improvement" and commit it. Two and a half Qs: It looks to me like this implementation is safe against "{" and "}" in strings, right? (Not a new issue, but since we're on the subject of macros:) If I define a macro na

Re: Q: pdd21 - namespaces.pod

2006-03-07 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:21:43PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > >Thanks for the good questions, I hope this answers them. > > Thanks, yes. So I got a new one ;) No rest for the wicked. :-) > In which namespaces should Parrot store PMC methods and multi subs? > Cu

Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-07 Thread Jonathan Worthington
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Depending on the arch (32 vs 64 bits) one of these opcodes is suboptimal. With a new "L" (Long) register type the functionality could be handled transparently: $L0 = pio.'tell'() Yes, but as you add more register types you get a combinatorial b

Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Mar 7, 2006, at 23:44, Jonathan Worthington wrote: - if you write PASM, overlapping Ix/Ly may cause warnings or errors, but could be used in a non-portable way, if you know what you are doing on a specific platform. You still didn't address my question with these points, though. mul L

Re: Integer types (was Re: early draft of I/O PDD)

2006-03-07 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Mar 7, 2006, at 23:44, Jonathan Worthington wrote: The register mapping rules would be something like: - Lx occupies registers I(2x, 2x+1) - this is compile time, that is 'L1' prevents 'I2' and 'I3' from being assigned by the register allocator - the runtime mapping isn't portable due t

Re: Patch for nested macro support

2006-03-07 Thread Joshua Isom
I've committed it as of r11820. Since it parses by tokens, braces inside of strings are allowed. With regard to clashing, pir specials take precedent over macros. The complications that could arise from accidental recursion, etc, seems complex. As for your .local example, you can always use

[perl #38691] OSX bus error in punie-clone

2006-03-07 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #38691] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38691 > Got the following backtrace working with a very slightly modified snapshot of punie.