From: Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:08:10 -0400
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 18:15:57 -0500
. . .
All of the mechanisms I've been able to find in Parrot for
conve
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 18:15:57 -0500
One of the big problems with Parrot's n_* opcodes is that they
often assume that the type of the result should be the same as
the type of the first operand . . .
I kinda thought it wouldn't be that
548342800628721885763499406390331782864144164680730766837160526223176512798435772129956553355286032203080380775759732320198985094884004069116123084147875437183658467465148948790552744165376
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It does produces >300 spectest_regression failures, though, so I don't
claim the patch is right.
Parrot doesn&
our contributors for making this possible, and our sponsors
for supporting this project. Our next scheduled release is 16 Sep 2008.
Enjoy!
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
From: TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:25:27 +0200
. . .
What's so different in $foo-bar versus $foo*bar, $foo+bar or
$foo/bar? The latter might e.g. indicate path variables.
FWIW, one sees "hyphen substitution" like this only very rarely in
Common Lisp code, desp
From: Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:02:06 -0500
That sounds cool. Did you do it at the editor level, or at the keyboard
level?
=Austin
In Emacs; see rgr-c-electric-dash-mode in [1], or other similar
solutions in [2]. That way, I can turn it on for
m my perspective, the added visual complexity is not worth it.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
From: Conrad Schneiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:25:58 -0700
Moritz Lenz wrote (on perl6-compiler)
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > but I
> > suspect people have good reasons for preferring underscores.
One reason (probably not a good one) is to use the same
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:22:20 -0500
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:19:33PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
> . . . but IIUC "and" is not short-circuiting.
"and" is short-circuiting.
Aha. I was misle
chained op implementation couldn't mess it up by
returning plain True?
My apologies if this is spelled out somewhere; I couldn't find
anything about this application of multiple-typing in S03.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
case. The OUTER scope is
always the one defined by outersub, no matter how many calls back in the
dynamic chain it might be.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
than
strictly necessary.
. . .
Larry
How about "daemon blocks"? That suggests to me that they are invoked as
required, and not necessarily in synchrony with their containing blocks.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
From: Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:53:51 -0400
From: Spocchio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Hi, i'm writing a gui tool, I need to open a non blocking pipe in read
mode, to avoid the bloc
ode whitout using
threads or fork()?
I like simple things, i only need something return me undef is there
is no input,
IIUC, it's the read operation, not the open, that is nonblocking. You
might want to look at IO::Select.
On behalf of the Parrot team, I'm proud to announce Parrot 0.5.2
"P.e. nipalensis." Parrot (http://parrotcode.org/) is a virtual machine
aimed at running all dynamic languages.
Parrot 0.5.2 can be obtained via CPAN (soon), or follow the download
instructions at http://parrotcode.org/source.html.
ow in an extra season . . .
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
obably that doesn't address the "is context is rw" issue. And
it's not clear to me what it would mean without something like "my" that
introduces a new scope . . .
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
I remember from C++. Debugging becomes more difficult when
you have to not only chase down things that are a Foo, but anything
you've compiled that might know how to turn itself into a Foo.
I tend to agree, FWIW.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
;m not so
sure that "filter" is broadly standard, as Damian asserts, but maybe I
haven't used enough languages.)
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
erhaps
%globals{"foo"} --> MultiSub{["foo", 'A', 'B'] => Sub, ...}
just to belabor the point a bit.
What about a not so global multi:
multi sub foo(A $a, B $b) {...}
Thanks for clarifying,
leo
Is this really different? After all, the o
20 matches
Mail list logo
