If you get the chance, I would really grateful if you could translate the abstract
into lay terms, just confused by the concept of "low level perl"
Why??, perl is my only (byte) compiled language...
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:10:30PM -, John van V wrote:
> If you get the chance, I would really grateful if you could translate the
> abstract into lay terms, just confused by the concept of "low level perl"
>
* We want
* It also means we can write bits of perl in Perl, and similarly not have
to care about this fact.
Granted, some developers are thick as a brick...
If you are writing perl in Perl, then, presumably, you would know this.
Excatly where is the added value, or is it purely for entertai
At 06:30 PM 10/10/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > Perl functions that are called from outside will have to have some sort of
> > interpreter attached to 'em. I can see either a default interpreter, or
> the
> > one they were compiled into being valid as a choice.
> >
> >
At 07:48 PM 10/12/00 +, John van V wrote:
> * It also means we can write bits of perl in Perl, and similarly not
> have
>to care about this fact.
>
>Granted, some developers are thick as a brick...
>If you are writing perl in Perl, then, presumably, you would know this.
But pe
$thanks -> (1000K)
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 03:43:07PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Doing this also means someone writing an app with an embedded perl
> interpreter can call into perl code the same way as they call into any C
> library.
Of course, the problem comes that we can't have anonymous functions in C.
That
At 08:57 PM 10/12/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 03:43:07PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Doing this also means someone writing an app with an embedded perl
> > interpreter can call into perl code the same way as they call into any C
> > library.
>
>Of course, the problem
Hildo Biersma wrote:
> Fisher Mark wrote:
> >
> > > One C++ problem I just found out is memory management. It seems
> > > that it's impossible to 'new' an object from an specified memory block.
> > > So it's impossible to put free'd objects in memory pool and re-allocate
> > > them next time.
>
Heh. In my youth, we said "Thanks a million." I see that inflation has
now turned that into "Thanks a million and twenty four thousand." :>
On 12 Oct 2000, John van V wrote:
>
> $thanks -> (1000K)
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> C's vararg handling sucks in many sublime and profound ways. It does,
> though, work. If we declare in advance that all C-visible perl functions
> have an official parameter list of (...), then we can make it work. The
> calling program would just fetch
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 03:24:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Can't. ISO C requires that all variadic functions take at least one named
> parameter. The best you can do is something like (void *, ...).
Argh. Can't we just use a stack? I like stacks. Stacks make sense.
--
..you could spend *
At 12:07 AM 10/13/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 03:24:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Can't. ISO C requires that all variadic functions take at least one named
> > parameter. The best you can do is something like (void *, ...).
Well, damn. And I mean that sincerely.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Well, damn. And I mean that sincerely. :(
I don't think it's that big a deal. Easy enough to wrap in a macro.
--
John Porter
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:55:52PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > Well, damn. And I mean that sincerely. :(
>
> I don't think it's that big a deal. Easy enough to wrap in a macro.
I thought (hoped) that the plan was the avoid the cpp like the plague
and cancer it is.
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:55:52PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's that big a deal. Easy enough to wrap in a macro.
>
> I thought (hoped) that the plan was the avoid the cpp like the plague
> and cancer it is.
Well, yes, definitely; but we're j
At 11:21 PM 10/12/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 10:55:52PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think it's that big a deal. Easy enough to wrap in a macro.
> >
> > I thought (hoped) that the plan was the avoid the cpp like the plague
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
