mentation or which are confusing, I'll try to contact
>the authors.
Hold off on that a bit--I want to look at the undocumented opcodes first.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sug
f they do, it hurts my brain enough that I'd
rather you didn't...) You also should be able to invoke them
anywhere, including within expressions.
You're not obligated to pass the continuation for the call/cc into
call/cc (you could pass another one in if you chose),
?)
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
on to deal with
for any of the -language sub-groups, and if she's not, then Nat *certainly*
is. And complaints about me can always go to him too.
Honestly it looks like a good part of the problem we're having is that
people are treating things that aren't particularly important to
nity has at the
moment--there aren't enough calm, mature, rational folks weighing in to
keep things as level as we might want. I'm not sure what to do about that,
since it's both a tiring and thankless endeavor that tends to burn people out.
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
>
ht make is unfounded. There is no central
authority. There is no guaranteed management control. There is no
*nothing*. Perl is an open source project whose development is currently
run by a group of interested parties. Don't like the way it's run? Fork the
source and go for it.
>
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:
> > >
ole lose them.
Forking isn't bad. The world's certainly not a worse place for having all
the various BSD and SysV Unix forks. (Most of the commercial Unices
qualify, as do the *BSDs) Neither is it a bad place for having the GCC fork
not all that long ago.
ou like, but that's wrong too.
5.6 was released because it was mostly done, more stable than 5.005 for the
bits it had in common, and because of general apathy in the developer realm
for the bits that were unfinished. Like, for example, Unicode.
>No, offense, Dan. This isn't targeting
n of, but I'm not a fan of everybody
>having a say, nor a select few workers having a say.
I rather like it. Russ did have a point earlier, and I'm tempted to leave
things open at the moment, or go the dual-subscription route and
automoderate everything as OK until a problem a
;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
----
#x27;real' executable (for some
value of real) we could potentially freeze it off to disk in some way,
getting an executable. This may help reduce memory usage if we can get
modules in a state where the perl code's actually a shared library, which
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
mewhere. That's where
my scripts run for hours, and where I care the most, since it affects me
directly)
So unless we come up with something concrete, the goals are:
1) A nebulous ~10% faster
2) Faster in the things that annoy Dan the most
3) Faster in the OO bits the f
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
tional
optimizations. We can save the nastier things (and with perl's active data,
a lot of stuff could reasonably be classed as difficult--good
optimization's going to need fairly complex flow analysis, I think) for
explicit requests, possibly with
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
eaded, or teflon-coated, or whatever...) doesn't mean that the abstract
architecture needs to require that. Threading is an implementation detail,
after all. (Granted that duplicating the behaviour in other ways is rather
hairy, but still...)
Dan
---
At 09:08 PM 10/24/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:52:53PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > > It's a good idea, but it really Isn't There Yet.
> >
> > Fair enough...
>
>Hey, I'm not Dan. There should have been big tags arou
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
mplementation details seems rather inappropriate.
Ideas are nice, but I expect most of the recommended implementations (if we
got them) would've been tossed out or wildly modified anyway, and it just
annoys folks to ignore things we've asked for.
rtesy. p5p is
rather less polite about things.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 03:13 PM 11/2/00 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan, Jarkko, etc. How about we try to identify the big units we'll be
>working on?
I have a list I've been fiddling with, and an overall design framework.
I've been offline for most of the week (IP connection down--if ma
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"-
At 09:30 PM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:42:34PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> > Not to mention "revisionist history". There were any number of uncourteous
> > voices during the RFC process.
>
>Exactly. Dan, weren't you th
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
ody tell me what's going on nowadays!
We're waiting for Larry. :)
I do hope, though, to get some preliminary internals work started within
the next few days. We don't have to wait on everything. (I hope...)
Dan
---
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)
At 12:17 AM 11/14/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan & al.,
>
>I'm very surprised to see planning groups for api and parsing for perl6
>springing up, with goals of providing RFC's in nine days. This is rather
>confusing given that Larry hasn't yet (that I'
rry to at least get starte.
>You know anything about this Nat? Nat, this also brings up another issue I
>hadn't foreseen. If one person (Dan, Sarathy, or whoever, not picking on
>anybody) leads so many working groups, how can that work into the fairness
>system that we bange
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]>
>a couple of days? It's read-only, so I can't test-post to it, and I'm not
>up on ezmlm grammar. Just [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a help/help?
It's always safe to resubscribe. You'll get an error message if you're on
already.
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
process. I'm uncomfortable leaving such decisions
> > > to such a small number of people. How about nominating/electing a
> >
> > If PDDs start as "Proposed" without needing any approval does this remove
> > the problem of a small group having a stranglehold
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
be possible to get the gory details if you want them, but then you'll
have to go a step lower in the API and, well, the docs say "Here there be
dragons". Or they will, at least.
One of the things we need to hammer out on the extension API list is
exactly what sorts of things
x27;ll be some way to
register your interest in memory that perl might otherwise reclaim. Might
piggyback on the inter-thread memory registry or something. (GCing memory
used by another thread strikes me as a good way to die in interesting ways...)
At 05:07 PM 11/22/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 11:02:16AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Dan:
> > > This strikes me as an excellent candidate for a custom scalar type. I
> like
> > > the idea, and it could be really useful in some ci
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
riable length encoding) is
>a pain since you can't any more just happily offset to the data.
This strikes me as an excellent candidate for a custom scalar type. I like
the idea, and it could be really useful in some circumstances, but I'd not
want to burden the default sca
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
>perl).
>
>
>rule:do {
>/do/ and "{" call(token) and "}" and action
> }
>
>rule:token {
> /\S+/ action
>}
Yup, we'll probably do something like that, since it covers a good
proportion of the cases we'll be dealing with.
At 09:06 AM 11/22/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Anyway, I'm trying to fit the definitions Dan offered yesterday with what
>has been said so far. Not everything seems to fit. One obvious question is
>that "the functions that are presented to the world" refers to functions
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
At 12:29 AM 11/25/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > I think Dan was suggesting that the (user side) regex doesn't change at all
> > (so that's no new syntax there)
> > It's just that the innards of perl gains
one we'd prefer if there are alternatives. I don't even
really care if we can't do it inside a regex specification itself and need
to do odd things with regex objects.
Yeah, I know we can do this with alternations and such, but that can get
really messy when we'
At 06:58 PM 11/28/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I doubt it; I get the feeling that what Dan is talking about is infinite
> > look-*behind*. Nine times out of ten, you won&#x
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
1 - 100 of 4917 matches
Mail list logo
