"Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, C++ has no GC, which is a good thing, but you can always
> fake it with Refcounts, which is much more efficient, and easily
> feasable with C++.
Err... current research shows that the refcount approach is one of the
slowest forms of GC, and it d
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
> Apparently chop() is specialized internally to detect the
> hashness of its argument, in a way that can't be expressed
> by a prototype.
That's what I thought, but no. The hash
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:37:22AM -0800, Mark Koopman wrote:
> where are all RFCs posted for perl6?
> is this the main discussion board for perl6
> development, or has the development broken down
> into separate group-lists? if it's broken down,
> where would i find a listing of lists?
http://d
At 12:54 PM 1/29/2001 -0800, Thomas Butler wrote:
>: Jeanna FOx wrote:
>: > It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
>: > mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
>: > off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would ra
I didn't post up jwz's grumblings to kick off Yet Another Java vs Perl
Argument. Nor did I post it to point out that he's a curmudgeonly
young fart (which he is, but that's not a Bad Thing). Its there
because he made alot of good points which apply to Perl.
Keep the discussion focused there, on
: Jeanna FOx wrote:
: > It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
: > mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
: > off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would rather
: > loose the illusion of safety to get better pe
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:47:47 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>well, according to this
>
>perl5.6.0 -le '%h = qw( a b c d ); $_ .= 1 for %h ; print values %h ; chop %h ; print
>values %h'
>b1d1
>bd
>
>it doesn't appear to be a chop specific thing. unraveling a hash always
>seems to use aliases for the
where are all RFCs posted for perl6?
is this the main discussion board for perl6
development, or has the development broken down
into separate group-lists? if it's broken down,
where would i find a listing of lists?
thanks much,
Mark Koopman
Software Engineer
WebSideStory, Inc
10182 Teles
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why does it work that way?
> >
> > people wanted access the the actual values of a hash when doing
> > foreach ( values %hash )
> > so they can mung them.
>
> Yes; but the
At 12:20 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Jeanna FOx wrote:
>David Mitchell wrote:
> > Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> > > "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> > > salvaged. What would he think
Jeanna FOx wrote:
> It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
> mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
> off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would rather
> loose the illusion of safety to get better performance.
David Mitchell wrote:
> Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> > "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> > salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> > Don't get smu
> Perhaps you meant that Perl 6 is going to have homogeneous arrays, in
> which case an array of ints would keep 32 bits (per value) of int data in
> the array and auto-generate the extra flags and stuff when a value is
> extracted from the array. That's possible, but it's a special case of small
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:14:04PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> Well, if a compiler can't figure it out that the types of the
> variables "Object" and "int" are different and it should make
> a conversion to assign one from the other, well, then the
> compiler writers are damn bad programmers!
The
Jeanna FOx wrote:
> Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over an array of anything
> "JP" == John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JP> Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
JP> Apparently chop() is specialized internally to detect the
JP> hashness of its argument, in a way that can't be expressed
JP> by a prototype.
well, according to this
perl5.
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected
> desire.
> What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there,
what
> kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
> format it has,
Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over
J. David Blackstone wrote:
> Yeah, that was one of my disappointments when I finally made the
> Java plunge last month. I kind of expected integers to be objects in
> what I had heard was the "perfect, pure" OO language.
Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
"32 b
Uri Guttman wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does it work that way?
>
> people wanted access the the actual values of a hash when doing
> foreach ( values %hash )
> so they can mung them.
Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
Apparently chop() is specialized in
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:07:10PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
> > > True, but you can't do any of all that without knowing the platform
> > > accurately (nontrivial and requires core mod or XS). Once that's
> > > done, the rest is just a matter of extending File::
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:56:33PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > > Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
> > > between Windows 95
22 matches
Mail list logo
