At 4:00 PM -0700 5/23/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section. I would assume that
C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C
role, with a note to the effect that the C role does
the C role (and thus anything that C<@x> may be bound to,
C<@@x> may also be bound
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
>I see no mention of C<@@x> in this section. I would assume that
>C<@@x> may be bound to any object that does the C
>role, with a note to the effect that the C role does
>the C role (and thus anything that C<@x> may be bound to,
>C<@@x> may also be bound
On May 23, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Joshua Isom wrote:
I confess to not grasping the point you claim is simple. As you
understand it, what is there about a register based machine, as
opposed to a stack based machine, that specifically improves the
perf
Perhaps it's better to think of '@' and '@@' as working with different
contexts. S02 says that there are three main contexts (void, scalar,
and list); that scalar context has a number of "sub-contexts"
(boolean, integer, number, and string), and that list context has a
number of sub-contexts base
Folks,
I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
Is anybody else here interested in that packaging system? More
generally, I've heard tha
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
> Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
I really don't know how to answer this question
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It sounds like you are saying that languages are free to implement
> > their own semantics using their own code, and that they can choose not
> > to interoperate with predefined Parrot types or types from other
> > languages when
At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> > At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
>
> > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #43044]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43044 >
hi,
attached another patch for debug.c I already sent this one, but I just
realized n
David Fetter wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
> Folks,
>
> I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
> 0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
> what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
I think that Steven Pritchard has w
On Thursday 24 May 2007 05:34:46 Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> > > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
> > I really don't know how to answe
Josh Wilmes schrieb:
The compiler tools target Parrot, so that it will be easier for people
(including us) to write languages that run on Parrot.
I understand. I'm just saying that *if* perl 6 were being written to target
an existing VM, any brilliant compiler tools could be written to t
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:33:23PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: >From S02:
:
: --
:
: Perl 6 includes a system of B to mark the fundamental
: structural type of a variable:
:
:$ scalar (object)
:@ ordered array
:% unordered hash (associative array)
:& code/rule/token/reg
Whoops, quoted but forgot to answer first question...
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:33:23PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Perl 6 includes a system of B to mark the fundamental
: structural type of a variable:
:
:$ scalar (object)
:@ ordered array
:% unordered hash (associative arra
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:38:11PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>This reports unknown method names when generating C code for PMCs.
> WDOT? Is this the right place for it? Should it die instead of warn?
>
> -- Bob Roger
Larry Wall wrote:
Well, it's already too easy, but the problem I have with it is not
that. My problem is that sigil:<@> is the name of a very specific
syntactic notion, while Positional is the name of a very generic
semantic notion. I don't think those levels should be confused.
Fair enough.
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #43048]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43048 >
... or so I think:
This works:
.sub zero_check
push_eh one
$N0 = 0.0
$N1
At 1:30 PM -0700 5/24/07, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, provided we consider Junction and Any to both be subtypes of Object.
All this time, I was thinking that "Any" and "Object" were
synonymous, that Any is a symbolic|syntactic alias for Object, and
Any is not a subtype of Object.
Object is the m
From: Robert Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:41:28 +0100
> +# check for mispeled or unimplemented method names.
Misspelled is misspelled? :-)
> End of diffs.
Bob
Just my lame sense of humor flaring up again.
On Friday 18 May 2007 19:58:48 Allison Randal wrote:
> What you haven't addressed (and what I consider the most important
> problem to solve for library loading), is a mechanism for extending
> Parrot's search path.
>
> If that were defined, then versioning would be a simple matter of
> selecting
20 matches
Mail list logo
