On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'd like to keep the code on Sourceforge from the get-go. I don't
> have much experience with Sourceforge, though, and would like to talk
> to someone who has. Which bits work well? Which bits aren't worth
> the effort? Any tips or tricks to pas
I'd like to keep the code on Sourceforge from the get-go. I don't
have much experience with Sourceforge, though, and would like to talk
to someone who has. Which bits work well? Which bits aren't worth
the effort? Any tips or tricks to pass on?
Thanks,
Nat
On 8/25/01 10:37 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm currently thinking of using .pasm as the extension for parrot assembly
> code, and .pbc for precompiled bytecode. [...] Can anyone think of anything
> better? They seem rather lame.
I think they're just fine, actually. I like them better than anythi
> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> I've got the rudiments of the parrot interpreter and assembler built
Dan> and running. (I get around 23M ops/sec on a 700MHz Alpha EV6) I'm
Dan> beating it up enough to get it into a reasonably released state, so
Dan> while I'm doing th
At 03:22 PM 8/18/2001 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>i didn't see any references to support debugging an external perl
>process. this should be designed in from the beginning, so the debugger
>API can be designed to work locally and over a pipe. the pipe can
>support an rpc or message interface which
At 08:11 PM 8/23/2001 -0400, Robert Spier wrote:
>Just some brief comments... $0.02 or some such. :)
> > The top-level structure of the Perl source tarball should be as
> > follows:
> >
> > /README, etca few top-level documents
> > /doc/ Assorted miscellaneous documentation
At 06:58 PM 8/25/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:37:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm currently thinking of using .pasm as the extension for parrot assembly
> > code, and .pbc for precompiled bytecode. (Yes, the interpreter loads and
> > runs compiled bytecode fro
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:37:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm currently thinking of using .pasm as the extension for parrot assembly
> code, and .pbc for precompiled bytecode. (Yes, the interpreter loads and
> runs compiled bytecode from disk. Wheee!) Can anyone think of anything
> better
At 11:37 PM 8/22/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>Larry's already said (from memory) that the distinction between ops and
>subs should be minimized or eliminated.
>
>That, together with the desire to keep parrot fairly language netural,
>leads naturally to having 'heavy' ops actually be be subs.
Yup
I've got the rudiments of the parrot interpreter and assembler built and
running. (I get around 23M ops/sec on a 700MHz Alpha EV6) I'm beating it up
enough to get it into a reasonably released state, so while I'm doing that...
I'm currently thinking of using .pasm as the extension for parrot as
10 matches
Mail list logo
