Josef Hook wrote:
> It's a fact that we have a problem with pmc's that has custom
> functions which dosent fit into the vtable. Therefore i suggest
> we add a pointer in pmc struct that points to a function list,
we already have find_method and invoke, they just need to be
implemented :-)
I was
It's a fact that we have a problem with pmc's that has custom functions
which dosent fit into the vtable. Therefore i suggest we add a pointer in
pmc struct that points to a function list, Also adding 3
functions to vtable struct that manipulates this list.
register_function( PMC *p, void *func
I've just got a cvaazy idea. Why not have a multihash.pmc, multdimensional
hashes. I've been going through perlhash code and my multiarray code and,
as i see it, its doable. Why would we want something like that one
could ask? One idea is for translation from different languages ex:
new P0, .
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> The intent ultimately
> is that you hand an AST, and potentially some rules, to IMCC and it
> creates bytecode for you from it.
That's different, then. Then the whole issue of syntax goes away.
Unless the data interchange format is textual; but even then, you'd
want a syn
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:17:22AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:11:29PM +, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> > Apart from that, does anyone know why test doesn't run on OpenBSD?
> > I get:
> >
> > ar: illegal option -- s
>
> Gnu-ism? What ar does OpenBSD use?
Obviou
Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >So please, first, let's consider the status quo, not the future.
>
> Agree.
>
> >_SV_s1 = clone $P1
>
> I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
> What do you think?
No change
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> Well, Sean's not quite sure about that. I agree with Melvin that using
> PASM syntax for IMCC could make it harder to target other platforms.
I don't know Melvin's plan for other targets - but - as parrot is very
special
'John Porter' wrote:
> Brent Dax wrote:
> No; but statements like "imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's
> (still very dynamic) feature set" and discussions of imcc syntax
> naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project.
> E.g. "will the perl6 compiler target imcc?"
T
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:11:29PM +, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> Apart from that, does anyone know why test doesn't run on OpenBSD?
> I get:
>
> ar: illegal option -- s
Gnu-ism? What ar does OpenBSD use?
A number of modifiers (mod) may immediately follow the p
keyletter, to
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Mark Koopman wrote:
> > I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
> > myself. I only wish I had the time & experience/skill/knowledge to
> > contribute.
> >
> > Keep up the good work.
Lurker honk, agreement. :)
R.
Mike Lambert wrote:
> Should this be a configure.pl-determined constant? Should we hardcode it
> to sizeof(void*)? Is this behavior guaranteed by the C spec? Can we
> assume it across all platforms even if it is not guaranteed?
I would be in favour of making it configuration-determined, just in
Jeff Goff:
# The mass of ICU code that's been added to Parrot. It's taking
Have we determined that there are no programming language and
portablility issues yet?
Are all the bits we need written in C? If not, we can't use it.
Does ICU handle Unix, Windows, VMS and Palm OS? If not, we can't u
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:17:30AM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > Just to complete this thread, I have committed the current version of my
> > COW code, as I promised earlier this week.
>
> Did you try running tests with GC_DEBUG on? I get numerous failures.
> Here's a patch with a couple of fix
13 matches
Mail list logo
