On Feb 19, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
There's a benchmark of Ruby implementations at
http://www.antoniocangiano.com/articles/2007/02/19/ruby-
implementations-shootout-ruby-vs-yarv-vs-jruby-vs-gardens-point-ruby-
net-vs-rubinius-vs-cardinal
(or http://xrl.us/uy5m )
There's a c
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:05:30AM -0600, Joshua Isom wrote:
> Also, looking through the gcc manpage, one thing caught my eye about
> optimizing, with regards to CG and CGP. "Note: When compiling a
> program using computed gotos, a GCC extension, you may get better
> runtime performance if
hi,
currently there are some deprecated ops, as listed in:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/ops/var.html
they are not listed in DEPRECATED.pod
This is not the first time some ops are deprecated, and will probably
not be the last time before the 1.0 release.
Is it a good idea to add a check to th
hi,
attached a patch for the Lua grammar file for PGE (lua.pg).
fixing:
* reorganized some rules w.r.t. "do end"
* rule instead of "..."
* fixed table constructor rules (they now work correctly) -- stolen from
lua51.pg
regards,
kjs
Index: languages/lua/src/lua.pg
==
back in 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/2004/09/msg25521.html
nowadays my effort of porting Parrot to the PocketPC platform, as you
may have suspected, force me to reopen the question.
there is, I know, a lot of work to be done. and this will sure
On 2/20/07, Aldo Calpini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
back in 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/2004/09/msg25521.html
nowadays my effort of porting Parrot to the PocketPC platform, as you
may have suspected, force me to reopen the question.
there is, I
This behavior *is* defined, according to:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/imcc/calling_conventions.html
And Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
First, PGE no longer uses the workaround, and relies on the
fact that :load works as documented in calling_conventions.html .
But I also think that with things li
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20/02/07, Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the application of this test, we have 1265 files that don't pass muster
as of 19FEB2007.
This is related to the new test in t/distro/file_metadata.t right[1]?
In which case t
Author: larry
Date: Tue Feb 20 09:35:53 2007
New Revision: 13592
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
Conjecturalized the delegation-via-hash syntax for now.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
==
--- doc/t
On Feb 20, 2007, at 8:44 AM, jerry gay wrote:
On 2/20/07, Aldo Calpini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no objection here! this is a long-desired feature, and is currently
unavailable. although i don't have a pocketpc to test on, i'll do my
best to help. for years, the dependence on perl 5's configur
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 03:55, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> 2) does anybody already have a .plan or something in mind about it (so
> that I may either learn from what others have thought, or avoiding
> reinventing some wheel)?
It would be nice, though I don't know how feasable it is, to be able to p
On Monday 19 February 2007 01:49, Joshua Isom wrote:
> The problem lies in io_buf.c, at line 562. My best guess is that it
> doesn't check that it hasn't gone past the end of the buffer. In some
> instances, parrot segfaults at this location, but it may take a while.
Tested in 17079, fixed in r
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20/02/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20/02/07, Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After the application of this test, we have 1265 files that don't pass
muster as of 19FEB2007.
>
> This is related to the n
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
The current Y has at least four strikes against it:
* It's an ASCII version of a cute Unicode picture, but other than that,
the picture it doesn't remind you of "zip" at all, especially in
the Y form.
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
> 'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must
> naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be... :-)
Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even refer to
itself. I call it the depresse
On Saturday 17 February 2007 08:27, jerry gay wrote:
> as noted in my svn log at time of checkin, this is a failing test
> which exposes a bug in Parrot::Distribution. '*.t' files are only perl
> files if the shebang says they are, but Parrot::Distribution is
> classifying all '*.t' files as perl
Larry Wall schrieb:
> I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to create an
operator wi
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Larry Wall schrieb:
> I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible t
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:49:20AM +0100, Thomas Wittek wrote:
: Larry Wall schrieb:
: > I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
:
: Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
: Perl6 development: Why not just call it "zip"?!
: There
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
@a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
[Off-list]
I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
@a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
XX(@a; @b; @c) -> cross function
@a X*
On 21/02/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Off-list]
Apparently not.
Just pretend I'm not here.
;-)
Damian
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
: >the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
: >the corresponding function form:
: >
: >@a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 19:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified:
>trunk/src/stm/backend.c
>
> Log:
> [stm]: don't access a null pointer
>
> Modified: trunk/src/stm/backend.c
> ===
>=== --- trunk/src/stm/backend.c
Damian Conway wrote:
> I'd be more inclined to go
> the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
> the corresponding function form:
>
> @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator
> ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function
>
> @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator
> XX(@a; @b; @c) ->
25 matches
Mail list logo
