> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> It was simply attempting to explain why I choose to ignore what are (to
DC> me, at least) trivial implementation issues, well documented in the
DC> compiler literature. I choose to ignore them because I *have* to ignore
DC> them or my br
Nathan Torkington writes:
: The fact that other languages can implement it trivially doesn't mean
: that Perl can. I'd like us to have realized what kind of internals
: support is needed for a language feature (e.g., optree duping for
: partially-evaluated subroutines) *before* speccing out the i
> So perhaps you should ask people to contribute implementation notes
> sections to your RFCs rather than entire RFCs? And no sense in requiring
> that for the initial version, though a solicitation in the text of the
> RFC itself might hasten their appearance.
I thought that was what
> > If there are any RFC's which you have in mind and could send me your
> > notes on, I'd be *more* than happy to help out.
> >
> This is actually an excellent idea, because then Damian can
> concentrate on coming up with the key ideas. However, rather than
> having to shuffle n
Damian Conway writes:
> $add = ^a + ^b;
> # a thousand lines later...
> $incr = $add->(1);
> # a thousand lines later...
> $x = $incr->($x);
I picture $add->(1) cloning add's optree, filling in the 1 where
appropriate, then returning a reference to the new (cloned) o
Damian Conway writes:
> me, at least) trivial implementation issues, well documented in the
> compiler literature. I choose to ignore them because I *have* to ignore
> them or my brain is going to melt.
The brief explanations you gave ("here's how it would be translated",
and "walk each statement
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> It was simply attempting to explain why I choose to ignore what are (to
> me, at least) trivial implementation issues, well documented in the
> compiler literature. I choose to ignore them because I *have* to ignore
> them or my brain is going to melt.
So perhaps you sho
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > You're error is in assuming I have time *now*.
> >
> > With 30+ RFCs still to write, I've been seriously contemplating
> > just abandoning the Perl 6 effort, because added to the demands
> > of my full-time job, my O'Reilly and other tutorial comm
[Apologies for following-up my own post]
I wrote:
> You're error is in assuming I have time *now*.
>
> With 30+ RFCs still to write, I've been seriously contemplating
> just abandoning the Perl 6 effort, because added to the demands
> of my full-time job, my O'Reilly and other tu
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> If a curried subroutine is truly generated because of seeing an
> expression containing placeholders, then that expression contains some
> finite number of placeholders. Each placeholder turns into a parameter
> of the generated subroutine. The generated subroutine has,
Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> Nathan, thanks for zeroing in on this paragraph from RFC 23. It raises a
> question in my mind about the meaning of the RFC, and whether the paragraph is
> even necessary, which could answer your question about implementation.
>
> If a curried subroutine is truly gene
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 06:35:55AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> You're error is in assuming I have time *now*.
>
> With 30+ RFCs still to write, I've been seriously contemplating
> just abandoning the Perl 6 effort, because added to the demands
> of my full-time job, my O'Reilly and other tutori
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> You're error is in assuming I have time *now*.
>
> With 30+ RFCs still to write, I've been seriously contemplating
> just abandoning the Perl 6 effort, because added to the demands
> of my full-time job, my O'Reilly and other tutorial commitments,
> my modules, and my poo
> > The subroutines generated by a placeholder are not exactly like
> > the equivalent subroutines shown above. If they are called with
> > fewer than the required number of arguments, they return another
> > higher order function, which now has the specified arguments
> > bound as
Nathan, thanks for zeroing in on this paragraph from RFC 23. It raises a
question in my mind about the meaning of the RFC, and whether the paragraph is
even necessary, which could answer your question about implementation.
If a curried subroutine is truly generated because of seeing an expressio
Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
> =head2 Re-currying deferred expressions
>
> The subroutines generated by a placeholder are not exactly like the
> equivalent subroutines shown above. If they are called with fewer than the
> required number of arguments, they return another higher order function,
> w
16 matches
Mail list logo
