On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> Making binary distribution easy is a laudable goal, but it's something
> the existing infrastructure already supports. I'd love to see "CPAN
> autobuilders" which build perl modules for a givven platform and
> architecture and make them generally availabl
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> No offense to whoever made that suggestion, but I think there are far
> more people out there with a developed taste for hyphenated
> identifiers than there are people with a thing for using backticks as
> subscript operators.
>
> Do you see the differe
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
> As for the ¥ pitfall, so far we've intentionally been careful to use
> it only where an operator is expected, whereas \ is legal only where a
> term is expected. So at least for Perl code, we can translate legacy
> ¥ to different codepoints. (Whether the J
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Steve Peters wrote:
> Again, I'd prefer not to be fired. Everything you have written above is
> not an option for the majority of the programmers out there. Also, not
> to helpful if you write your programs in TSO on an IBM mainframe.
In general true, but the cent sign was
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:04:20 -0700, Hong Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Normally, GC is more efficient than ref count, since you will have many
>advanced gc algorith to choose and don't have to pay malloc overhead.
You still need to malloc() your memory; however I realize that the
allocator c
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:35:34 -0700, Damien Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:07:03PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
>> Well, there's the Perl 5 reference counting solution. In normal cases
>> DESTROY is called as soon as it can be. Of course we're all anxious to
>> get into
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:07:03 -0400 (EDT), Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
>> The answer used in .NET is to have a dispose() method (which is not a
>> special name--just an informal standard) that the class user calls manually
>> to clean up resou
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:28:00 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yep, that's another issue, and one I keep forgetting about, though the fact
>that we don't do predictable finalization on some objects isn't a good
Yes, I know I promised to shut up until you come up with a spec, but
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:33:52 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> It's reasonably obvious (which is to say "cheap") which variables aren't
>> involved with anything finalizable.
>
>Probably a simple bit check and branch. Is that cheap? I guess it must
>be.
Yes, but incrementin
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:29:21 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:38 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>> > Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization attached to
>> > them. Full refcounting isn't required, ho
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:11:09 -0500, "Bryan C. Warnock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sunday 11 February 2001 19:08, Jan Dubois wrote:
>> However, I couldn't solve the problem of "deterministic destruction
>> behavior": Currently Perl will cal
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:19:36 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Almost all refcounting schemes are messy. That's one of its problems. A
>mark and sweep GC system tends to be less prone to leaks because of program
>bugs, and when it *does* leak, the leaks tend to be large. Plus the
12 matches
Mail list logo
