?)
Having said that, if we manage to make it happen then I'm all for it. :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
a quick overview?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ommand procedure that wrote other command procedures that
submitted command procedures to batch, was 13 quotes in a row. Let's *not*
go there, thanks.
Dan
--"it's like this"-
une from the moritorium.
I'd personally like a license chosen before any code gets written in
earnest, so that might well argue for -license to wrap up before then.
(Whether this is an issue or not is up in the air--it depends on who's
submitting code)
ribute something that claims to be
perl without the AL/GPL imposed on it then they ought to be allowed to as
long as its not deceptive, and it may be that having some sort of licensing
body would be in order.
Dan
------&qu
At 08:59 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it
> > works. Might not be as efficient as full kernel support for
At 08:31 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
>
>Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own IO
>subsystem, can't
At 05:17 PM 9/30/00 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:24:38PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > $foo = """Things like ', ", and \ have no special meaning in here.""";
> >
> > Argh! *NO*! That way lies madne
be far
more important than they really are.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
at least fake it in public.
And Dave? Do please keep your issues with perl 5 and ActiveState elsewhere.
This isn't p5p. We don't even have software for you to have issues with yet.
Dan
--"it's lik
At 06:19 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 04:34 PM 9/29/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've no experience with UML, though. Got a pointer to
At 07:51 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>On 5 Oct 2000, at 13:44, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 06:19 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > >On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll have to go pick that up o
At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Scott wrote:
>> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
>> > > proc
At 06:40 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> > the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> >
At 08:50 PM 9/29/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:37:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 04:13 PM 9/29/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >Are you suggesting that the attributes use the same mapping system as
> > >the XS (or son-of
At 12:56 PM 10/9/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >The Mythical Man-Month
> >Fred Brooks
>
>That reminds me: I highly recommended "Anti-Patterns":
> www.antipatterns.com/briefing
Nifty. I think it's another book
At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan> A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
> Dan> Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
>
>place.
What you want isn't currently possible. Period. The only way to make it
even remotely possible is to entrust perl development to some sort of
entity akin to the Apache Software Foundation, and if we do that we will
undoubtedly piss of yet another group of people. (And you'
At 10:48 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
> > developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
> > other
ls between
>internal functions would look the same.
If there's no hit, I'd love to have all perl functions callable from
outside. I'm not sure that'll be the case, though I'm all for it...
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 11:12 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > "General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
> > the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that who
At 07:09 PM 10/10/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > "General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
> > the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
> > counci
At 06:58 PM 10/10/00 -0500, Tad McClellan wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ime, and a desire to not appear domineering for offense.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
rises.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
;s a spotty thing at the
moment. (Soon, though, I hope... :)
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ing to be written in C#. What it's probably going to do (or at
least have the potential to do) is emit C# code the same way it'll be able
to emit Java bytecode.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
>development work in Japanese.]
Nah. Only those newbies that don't speak Japanese. If we wanted to keep the
newbies out we'd write perl 6 in INTERCAL. :-P
Dan
--"it
At 07:47 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Got me. I'd planned on us writing perl 6 in INTERCAL.
>
> PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
A... you're no fun! :)
>Incidentally, and just t
At 08:18 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
> > A... you're no fun! :)
>
>I am, but nurse says I'm not allowed to write INTERCAL any more.
Well
rld go *totally* gaga overnight?
Got me. I'd planned on us writing perl 6 in INTERCAL. (Or SNOBOL, I'm still
undecided... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 09:01 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:37:02PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Oh, without a doubt. I'd actually like to get things building such that
> the
> > four main modules--parser, bytecode compiler, optimizer, and execution
>
's too late to be afraid...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
st. I tried it with perl 5, and saw a rather
significant performance hit. ~20% IIRC, but the numbers are in the p5p
archives somewhere.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 08:43 PM 10/23/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> At 08:33 PM 10/23/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> as for ziggy's comments on the overload of builtins issue there could
h is good. Loops
are wasted overhead for what we want to be doing.
>I don't see anything that distinguishes this from the ordinary process of
>generating code with a runtime library and a stack.
There isn't, much.
Dan
----
7;d
be rather keen.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
but
don't dismiss heavy optimizations on tiny programs. Granted I may be in the
minority, running one-liners over 100M+ files, but a lot of perl code's
bigger than that.
A lot of the tiny programs aren't all that tiny, either. Ten lines isn't
much unless one
At 03:28 PM 10/23/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Dan Sugalski [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > (Though if someone comes up with a way to make the
> > platform-dependent bits really small and isolated I'm all for it)
>
>Hmm... I&
At 12:54 AM 10/24/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> So unless we come up with something concrete, the goals are:
>
> DS> 1) A nebulous ~10% faster
> DS> 2) Faster in the
olks upstairs from me use
I think we can do a bit better than that...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:23 AM 10/24/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> Nope, that's not a win, because it can't happen. There needs to be
> DS> an intermediate representation that can be ru
different default optimization levels for
parse-and-go perl and compile-to-bytecode perl.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:22 AM 10/24/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:11:21AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I like the idea of returning multiple results in multiple registers. Pity
> > nothing on the planet could link to us if we did that... :(
>
>not quite
wouldn't be clever enough to know about all available
>numberic types and automatically chose the best representation; rather
>that it was the programmer's responsibilty via 'use' or some other syntax.
Numeric constants will probably fall into two classes--those per
-------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
nd that
>previous mail.
Luckily for me, I am. (I think...:) C-- has some nifty ideas, but I don't
think it's portable or solid enough to use.
Dan
------"it's like this"--
x27;d trip over either, but the
possibility does exist.
No matter what we do we're going to have fixup sections of some sort in the
shared code that gets loaded in. There's no real way around that.
Dan
--&
At 05:21 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:05:22PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:02 PM 10/25/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > > I vaguly can see a TIL
version code will be
needed anyway.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
an
off-topic answer. It does mean that the public responses to off-topic mail
must be polite and pleasant.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
t I don't think the separation's made things worse than what
we would've gotten if we hadn't done that.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
rtesy. p5p is
rather less polite about things.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
peed
* Did I mention speed?
I'll get the list out soon, and we can get things going darned soon.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
issues do need
direct addressing.
It's also important that everyone involved in the discussion realize that
they may be wrong. (And sometimes wildly wrong)
Dan
--"it's like this"-
uot; is a good third.
Anyone think others are needed?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:42 AM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> > rat
-------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
et in touch with either the
correct WG chair or Nat or me, and we'll do our best to hook you up with
someone in a position to make your ideas concrete.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Da
differ. Docs that make PDD 'developing' status or better are real design
documents for what'll ultimately be perl 6. Most of the brainstorming work
I'd like left on the mailing lists, or in informational PDDs. (And I'd like
to try and keep those reasonably relevant)
k proceeds)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ll be calld when one's seen.
That the language isn't fully defined doesn't mean we can't start parsing
with perl 5 and go from there, but that's a separate issue for a separate
group that's not started yet.
Dan
--
At 07:35 AM 11/15/00 +, Mike Lacey wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nathan Torkington"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
erey Bay Aquarium at the same time... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
sk is reasonably partitionable, so I don't have nearly the burden of
consolidating things that Larry does at the language level, and what I'm
trying (perhaps clumsily) to do is farm out pieces to people while making
sure we don't start with the sort of mess we have now with perl 5.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
but if there's someone with both interest and expertise...)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 02:45 PM 11/17/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> > >pieces like the VM or par
need to be generally exposed to extensions and
what don't.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
a lot of handwaving at this
point. :)
You're likely right that a series of substituting substr() calls will be
the end result, but that's OK.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sug
n that case, since the string memory really isn't perl's
to manage.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
lar with the code for this.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
he compilation/execution bits, which
could potentially call into the parser again...)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even
At 12:46 PM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> > >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> > >
> > >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
At 01:04 PM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > >However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the
>parser is
> > >perl, how does the perl pa
At 11:45 PM 11/21/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> >
> > >Well, it would (IMHO) make more sense to have
&g
At 01:50 PM 11/22/00 -0500, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> >> However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the parser is
>
At 12:11 PM 11/22/00 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > You're not wrong, but I don't think this is a huge problem. Lots of systems
> > do it like this at the moment--GCC comes to mind as a first one, but there
> > are lots of others. Gr
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
r extensions.
Also, check the bibliography that got posted to perl6-meta--the advanced
compiler book I put on the list is one I rather like.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
mon problem with regex parsers.
Probably the easiest thing is to implement some sort of file-tied scalar or
something that can provide bytes to the regex engine until it stops asking
for them. Some magic or other, though, will get us what we need.
gt;
>I don't think so. In a compiler I don't believe that the intermediate step
>is there, and I've never seen any compiler accept multiple input semantics
>and multiple output (meaning binary, bytecode, java, c#))
Pretty much everyone's compiler does this at this point. G
ll be a syntax tree
>
>I think I said that.
More or less. Perl will probably have two different intermediate
representations, the parsed syntax tree and bytecode. The parser only spits
out the syntax tree.
Dan
---
At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> > >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> > >
> > >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
xpressions run over text and ultimately fail, but
rather cases where we need to chuck out part of what we have and restart?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even
At 04:50 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's a question for those of you with more experience at parsers
> > than I have. (Which would be about everyone)
> >
> > Is there an
is passed back to the function
whose pointer we got as parameter two.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
s just isn't a reasonable criticism of regex parsers since
>normal parsers do it all the time anyway!
It's certainly a reasonable criticism of parsers in general, and a good one
to keep in mind with regex based parsers. It's easier to overdo it with a
bad regex than it is
;re pasting a half-zillion regexes together.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
similar things you might need to remember.
Well, we do have the syntax tree, and can make whatever notes we want in
the stash of the interpreter we're dealing with. Maybe an "intederminate"
on the foo slot or something.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 07:03 PM 11/28/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The third parameter is the flags parameter, and it's optional. If omitted
> > or set to PERL_CHAR_SOURCE, the second param
ways is that one being violated? (I can think of a couple
personally... :)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 09:10 AM 11/28/00 -1000, Tim Jenness wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > ---
> >
> >int perl6_parse(PerlInterp *interp,
> >void *source,
> >int flags,
> >
At 03:15 PM 11/28/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:34:22PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 01:25 PM 11/28/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:03:49PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > > Applying the maxim th
At 09:05 PM 11/28/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:35:37PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > > is treated as if it points to a stream of bytes, where the first
> four are
>
not, since that would place the burden of knowing too
much about the guts of perl on whoever's using it. I don't want to do that.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
1 - 100 of 4805 matches
Mail list logo
