At 09:31 AM 1/14/2004 -0800, David Storrs wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I think Perl6 will allow a hint like so:
>
> my int $max_reached;
>
> The important thing is that $max_reached is used simply as a conditional,
> and you don't
At 10:16 PM 1/13/2004 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
David Storrs writes:
> Given this code:
>
> if ( some_expensive_lookup_function() >= $MAX_RECORDS ) {
>mark_that_we_have_reached_max_records();
>return;
> }
>
> After I enter that block once, I never want to evaluate the condit
At 09:25 AM 1/8/2004 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:48:46AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> If worse comes to worst, you can always ask me. I manage to keep the
> largest amount of the language in my head with the most time available
> to answer questions :-)
Oh no, now *
At 09:30 PM 1/5/2004 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:55 PM 1/5/2004 +0100, Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote:
>>The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > people's salaries will depend on Parrot. I confess
At 07:55 PM 1/5/2004 +0100, Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote:
The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> people's salaries will depend on Parrot. I confess I wouldn't be
> surprised if, by the end of the year, we haven't seen the full
> implementation of at least one of the big non-
Poor guy, I just told him the same thing off-list. Well I come to think of
it,
I guess that makes me an old fogey too.
-Melvin
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/15/2003 11:39 AM
To: Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAI
Piers,
Regarding your Perl6 Essentials summary:
>Or, he can write code for IMCC using Parrot Intermediate Language (known
as PIR for reasons that aren't entirely clear even to one who has been
watching the mailing list since the Parrot project started)
I suppose noone has much read the README
At 10:23 AM 7/30/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
>We have already the same Mops as perl5, but additionaly 2.3 seconds
>overhead. Just running the byte code is as fast as perl5.
>
>Without jit, mops.p6 p
At 07:57 PM 7/29/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
> > include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried
> > running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the
At 12:00 PM 7/22/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:21:09AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > > "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say t
At 01:08 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
>On Thursday 11 July 2002 11:47 am, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > According to Dan Sugalski:
> > > At 9:50 PM -0400 7/9/02, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > > >3a. If so, how can one distinguish among the e.g. many C
> > > >variables declared w
At 04:24 PM 7/10/2002 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 9:50 PM -0400 7/9/02, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > >3. Is C<%MY> intended to reflect the PAD?
> >
> > Yes.
>
>Hey! How's this for a scary thought:
>
>$continuation.the_pad
>
>I'll get my
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Richard Nuttall wrote:
> > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
>
>I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that
>we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot.
Given that by the time Parrot is b
Cross-posted to p6l and cardinal.
Parrot Intermediate Compiler (or Intermediate Representation)
See parrot/languages/imcc
Just another round of commits, supporting more directives and
instructions. Correctly handling indexed use of strings ala:
str[0] = "A"
ch = str[0]
Will have this working
At 06:11 PM 5/16/2002 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 16:07, Mike Lambert wrote:
>There're three stages:
>
> 1. "compile time" -- When a module or program is byte-coded
> 2. "load time" -- When byte-code is loaded off of disk
> 3. "run time" -- When the p
At 11:44 AM 5/1/2002 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:22:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > NAME
> > Acme::Don't - The opposite of `do'
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> ...
> >
> > Note that the code in the `don't' block must be syntactically valid
> > Perl. Th
Now that Clint has Eliza running on Parrot, I propose that
from henceforth, Eliza shall field all newbie questions
and take responsibility of the FAQ.
Eliza should also field discussions concerning why we don't
add new keywords such as "elloopo"; if you can convince
Eliza, then the proposal shall
At 04:03 PM 4/11/2002 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 14:34, Larry Wall wrote:
> > Miko O'Sullivan writes:
>
> > : Well, I had been hoping to appeal to the mathematical mindset of the
> list,
> > : but there is a second reason for = in addition to / /=: it's simpler to
> > : un
At 04:01 PM 4/10/2002 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > $.foo
> >
> > It's already defined as an instance variable.
>
>I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
>class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
>property for class variables. L
At 08:04 AM 4/11/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Wow there is a lot of blood on the ground here. Must have been messy... :)
>Of course, the problem is then: what should the name of this topicalizer
>variable be? The main options are:
>
> $self
At 07:54 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >> > method m1
> >> > {
> >> >m2; # calls method m2 in the same
At 07:40 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> >>"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 a
At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > > method m1
> > > {
> > >m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
> > Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
>
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
>stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of the next $(A,E)'s
> my SchemeExpr $.v
At 07:12 AM 4/5/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Melvin Smith wrote:
>More generally, it also depends whether you think of out-of-band properties as
>nouns or adjectives. For example:
>
> class Toaster is silver is shiny is hot is little {...}
>
>vs:
After reread
At 07:12 AM 4/5/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Melvin Smith wrote:
>
> > 1) In Perl6 we can tag metadata properties to an object using the 'is'
> keyword.
>
>Err, no. We can add properties to a *class* using C.
>To tag objects (which are run-time phenomena)
Reading Apoc and Exeg 4 I liked most everything. It has already
been said many times how Perl6 is finally getting features
the OO guys have been wanting forever, so I won't state the
obvious again, but I would like to propose an alternate keyword...
1) In Perl6 we can tag metadata properties to a
At 07:50 AM 4/3/2002 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>Piers Cawley writes:
>: Just a thought, I assume that something like the following will be legal:
>: Yeah, it's not good style; I should really be doing
>:
>: $msg.dispatch_to($self)
For some people (OO purists), switch statements are message dis
At 09:47 AM 2/21/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It
>Sam> just implies that the second condition is not generally what
>Sam> you'd expect if the first was true.
>
>Randal> Mayb
just has too f*cking many ways of doing things. How can anyone ever
>figure out which one to use?'"
Cough cough. Hack. Cough. Choke.
-Melvin Smith
IBM :: Atlanta Innovation Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 770-835-6984
At 01:52 PM 1/28/2002 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Aaron Sherman:
> > #
> > # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
> > # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
> > # you.
> >
> > I disagree. He'll see stuf
At 11:40 AM 1/25/2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > >What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared outside
> > >the braces be lexical to the bra
At 05:01 PM 1/23/2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:45:21PM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > Final seems to be a way of sealing off a class or method from future
> > inheritance. Generally, the arguments I've seen on OO lists seem to
> > indicate that regardless o
At 02:45 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>Melvin Smith wrote:
> > Referring to final, private, etc. modifiers that you can use in C++/Java
> > whenever you don't want someone reimplementing or overriding something.
>
>final and private are completely differen
At 02:25 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>Melvin Smith wrote:
> > I'm not comfortable with this sort of concept. Typically "inheritance" is
> > going to either take the base implementation or _replace_ the
> implementation.
> > The replaceme
>Methinks (that's me, not you) that if me thinks (that's you, not me)
>that my argument is an argument *for* it being pretty odd *not* to
>inherit them, that there is an assumption by me or me (that's one or the
>other of us) that is clearly wrong about the way inheritance of methods
>(should) wo
At 01:43 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>i need help on making it into an auction that will
>work.
Ok I thought so.
You might try [EMAIL PROTECTED] for some beginner
tips but I doubt you want to submit a whole script, maybe
rephrase your stuff into specific problems you are having.
Good luck,
At 01:39 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, frank crowley wrote:
>see attached file.
>
>
>=
>frank crowley
What is it that you wanted us to see?
-Melvin
At 04:12 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> MS> "lives on", ... "creeping lexical", I feel the same way, we must
> find some
> MS> way to kill these... :)
>
>well, larry looks at it differently and what he said on the cruise makes
Well we had a go, but our kung fu powers were no match
At 12:50 PM 1/21/2002 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>In most other languages, you wouldn't even have the opportunity to put
>a declaration into the conditional. You'd have to say something like:
I grudgingly agree here. Where did this shorthand come from anyway?
The first time I ever used it was C++
At 03:16 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, Tzadik Vanderhoof wrote:
>It's not the condition you would want to check, it's the variable (e.g.
>$line).
Right, I gotcha. I guess I would rather see it cater to the typical use,
not the atypical. Of course my opinion of typical might differ from yours.
I do feel th
At 03:14 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 03:02 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>Why all the fuss? Often, you would *want* to access that lexical after the
>>loop terminates, for instance to check how it terminated.
>
>Why would you want to check it when the c
At 03:02 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Why all the fuss? Often, you would *want* to access that lexical after the
>loop terminates, for instance to check how it terminated.
Why would you want to check it when the condition is typically boolean?
while( my $line = ) {
I think many pe
At 12:32 PM 1/21/2002 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 10:58:34PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : while( my $line = ) {
> > : ...
> > : }
> >
> > That still works fine--it's just that $line lives on after the while.
>
>This creeping lexical leakage bothers m
44 matches
Mail list logo
