On May 23, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Joshua Isom wrote:
I confess to not grasping the point you claim is simple. As you
understand it, what is there about a register based machine, as
opposed to a stack based machine, that specifically improves the
perf
Folks,
I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
Is anybody else here interested in that packaging system? More
generally, I've heard tha
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It sounds like you are saying that languages are free to implement
> > their own semantics using their own code, and that they can choose not
> > to interoperate with predefined Parrot types or types from other
> > languages when
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
> Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
I really don't know how to answer this question
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #43044]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43044 >
hi,
attached another patch for debug.c I already sent this one, but I just
realized n
At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> > At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
>
> > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie
David Fetter wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
> Folks,
>
> I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
> 0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
> what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
I think that Steven Pritchard has w
On Thursday 24 May 2007 05:34:46 Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> > > Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
> > I really don't know how to answe
Josh Wilmes schrieb:
The compiler tools target Parrot, so that it will be easier for people
(including us) to write languages that run on Parrot.
I understand. I'm just saying that *if* perl 6 were being written to target
an existing VM, any brilliant compiler tools could be written to t
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:38:11PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>This reports unknown method names when generating C code for PMCs.
> WDOT? Is this the right place for it? Should it die instead of warn?
>
> -- Bob Roger
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #43048]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43048 >
... or so I think:
This works:
.sub zero_check
push_eh one
$N0 = 0.0
$N1
From: Robert Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:41:28 +0100
> +# check for mispeled or unimplemented method names.
Misspelled is misspelled? :-)
> End of diffs.
Bob
Just my lame sense of humor flaring up again.
On Friday 18 May 2007 19:58:48 Allison Randal wrote:
> What you haven't addressed (and what I consider the most important
> problem to solve for library loading), is a mechanism for extending
> Parrot's search path.
>
> If that were defined, then versioning would be a simple matter of
> selecting
13 matches
Mail list logo
