> "RR" == Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RR> I don't think circular references are used that much. This is
RR> maybe something a programmer still has to think a little bit
RR> about. And if it means, that timely destruction maybe becomes
RR> slow only for the sake of collec
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Or, with the "block hooks" that I keep claiming makes timely destruction
> almost never needed, it is:
>
> {
> my $s = new CoolClass;
> # ... do stuff that may throw ...
> LEAVE { destroy $s }
> }
>
> This destroys properly a
From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:12:50 +0200
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I agree with Dan completely here. People make such a big fuss over
> timely destruction when they don't realize that they don't really need
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Robin Redeker wrote:
> I don't think circular references are used that much.
Circular references are useful any time you need to be able to iterate
over a collection, and also have to identify which collection a given object
is in.
This may even be implicit from other require
# New Ticket Created by Nick Glencross
# Please include the string: [perl #35144]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=35144 >
Guys,
This isn't a highly critical segfault I imagine, although it might be of
inte
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:57:10PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> Just because refcounting is error-prone it doesn't mean that a garbage
> collector is better (and less error-prone).
I'm one of the maintainers of the perl5 core. perl5 is very mature, with
relatively few new features being added, an
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
We already have a C opcode. I've now included the
functionality of C inside C.
Please use this code now instead of C:
.include "except_severity.pasm"
die_hard .EXCEPT_DOOMED, 0# die
die_hard .EXCEPT_DOOMED, 77 # die 77
The C opcode is doomed and will die.
Or due
At 7:24 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
I just wanted to correct my small example:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:00:53PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> Robin Redeker writes:
And with explicit resource handling (without timely destruction) it may be:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
...
At 11:48 AM -0600 4/28/05, Luke Palmer wrote:
Robin Redeker writes:
This should actually be, to prevent the resource from leaking:
{
my $s = new CoolClass;
eval {
... do stuff that may throws ...
};
destroy $s;
}
Or, with the "block hooks" that I keep
Robin Redeker writes:
> This should actually be, to prevent the resource from leaking:
>
> {
> my $s = new CoolClass;
> eval {
> ... do stuff that may throws ...
> };
> destroy $s;
> }
Or, with the "block hooks" that I keep claiming makes timely destruction
I just wanted to correct my small example:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 05:00:53PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> > Robin Redeker writes:
> And with explicit resource handling (without timely destruction) it may be:
>
>{
> my $s = new CoolClass;
> ...
> destroy $s;
>}
This shoul
At 12:12 AM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
> Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
> is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
> continuations, which'll screw
At 01:10 PM 4/28/2005, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
The expense is non-trivial as well. Yeah, it's all little tiny bits
of time, but that adds up. I
At 5:57 PM +0200 4/28/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
>Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
>solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
>
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:43:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:40 PM +0200 4/27/05, Robin Redeker wrote:
> >Just for the curious me: What was the design decision behind the GC
> >solution? Was refcounting that bad? Refcounting gives a more global
> >speed hit indeed, but it's more determinist
We already have a C opcode. I've now included the
functionality of C inside C.
Please use this code now instead of C:
.include "except_severity.pasm"
die_hard .EXCEPT_DOOMED, 0# die
die_hard .EXCEPT_DOOMED, 77 # die 77
The C opcode is doomed and will die.
Thanks,
leo
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've implemented this part now:
> For Python, Lisp and probably more HLLs the same is of course needed for
> unary opcodes:
>abs Px, Py # use existing abs, Px exists
>Px = n_abs Py# create new abs result PMC
> This is of cours
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:59:05PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Robin Redeker writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > I think, more importantly, they don't understand what they're
> > > getting in return for giving [refcounting] up.
> >
> > Could you point out
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (gdb) p interpreter->exceptions
> $5 = (struct parrot_exception_t *) 0x0
> what should have initialised that?
An exception structure is created per entering a run-loop, see:
src/inter_runc.c:runops(). You can either create your own exception
setup/hand
In exceptions.c, real_exception has:
{
STRING *msg;
Parrot_exception *the_exception = interpreter->exceptions;
...
/*
* FIXME classify errors
*/
the_exception->severity = EXCEPT_error;
which goes BOOM:
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to de-Warnock this thread:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) PIR syntax
>>
>> It was already discussed a few times that we might change PIR syntax:
>>
>> current:
>>
>>Px = Pyset Px, Py alias Px an
Robin Redeker writes:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > I think, more importantly, they don't understand what they're
> > getting in return for giving [refcounting] up.
>
> Could you point out what i get?
>
> I use TD is to handle resources: filehandles, database
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Dan Sugalski writes:
> > Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
> > is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
> > continuations, which'll screw *everything* up, as they are wont to do.
>
Dan Sugalski writes:
> Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction
> is less useful than they might want, what with threads and
> continuations, which'll screw *everything* up, as they are wont to do.
> I know I've been making heavy use of continuations myself, and this i
24 matches
Mail list logo
