Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't trace system areas in sweep ops
> through holes in the C stack (hmm... if anyone has a good drawing of
> this?)).
I don't know if its a good one, but my original posting about that
problem had some ASCII graphics (in this thread):
Subj
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, okay, PONIE really stands for 'Perl On New Internal Engine'.
That's that what they say. Actually it was: "PONIEPONIE":
"Perl5 Obsoletes Nasty Internals Entirely:
Parrot Occupies Numerous Interpreters Everywhere"
But that was to bulky. Or too many
Piers Cawley writes:
> is static?
> Discussion of static/state variables continued. Arcadi Shehter wondered
> if it made sense to attach "but" properties to closures. I confess I
> didn't really understand what he was driving at. Austin Hastings and
Actually, I was confused , thi
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:09:43AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I'm still hoping rather desperately for a if-uninitialized op in
general, even if only for hashes, because the difference between
"present but undefined" and "not pr
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:09:43AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> I'm still hoping rather desperately for a if-uninitialized op in
> general, even if only for hashes, because the difference between
> "present but undefined" and "not present" is rather crucial for some
> common algorithms.
Ca
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 07:39 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
Argument initializations
Michael Lazzaro summarized the various different and proposed
assignment
operators available in Perl 6, including a proposed "::=" for 'only
assign to uninitialized variables'. Michael wondered how
--- Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "PC" == Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PC> To do that you need to declare the parameter with "is
> PC> copy". Uri noted that he really should keep his finger off
> the
> PC> send button until he's read the whole 'm
> "PC" == Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PC> To do that you need to declare the parameter with "is
PC> copy". Uri noted that he really should keep his finger off the
PC> send button until he's read the whole 'megilla', whatever one
PC> of those is.
it is appr
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Coroutines end and DFG
> > Nobody explained what DFG stands for.
>
> It's a commonly used TLA standing for Data Flow Graph, which
> accompanies the CFG (Control Flow Graph). Both are necessary
> for register allocation
Piers Cawley wrote:
Coroutines end and DFG
Nobody explained what DFG stands for.
It's a commonly used TLA standing for Data Flow Graph, which accompanies
the CFG (Control Flow Graph). Both are necessary for register allocation.
leo
On Tuesday, December 24, 2002, at 02:55 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
Apparently part of the problem is that the undef function isn't
fully defined.
Well, isn't that sort-of the point?
:-)
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
> Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to be a supercomma in these
> situations, does that mean that we C addicts can have C back to do
> the kinds of loops that we mean when we say "for loops"?
I hope not.
> I really don't much like the C keyword.
>
> for (
> Supercomma!
> [snip]
> Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
> parallel for loops from:
> for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
> to something like:
> for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer goi
Piers Cawley writes:
>
> FMTWYENTK about ":="
> Bravely declining to expand the acronym in his subject, arcardi posted a
> summary of his current understanding of the behavior of ":=", the
its "far more then what you ever need to know"
and after Damian Conway answer it becomes JEOWY
14 matches
Mail list logo
