are at it.
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Matthew Persico wrote:
> Which leads me to the question:
>
> Where do we discuss where to install modules? The prime question being
> how do we keep modules installed for multiple versions of Perl? I
> haven't yet seen that discussion, but it is one I want to participate
> in
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> I don't think we're advocating its (their) complete demise, just the
> transition out of the core. (Which would, of course, still require a
> change to the scripts to 'use Format;'. Hmmm, perhaps all of
> formatting that is left in the core would b
(Cc'd to perl6-internals, which is where most of this is going)
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I can't find the full original thread, but somewhere it was suggested
> that $^O be removed because it's the same as $OSNAME. Again, I'm against
> this, I use it all the time.
$Config{osnam
;s not a bad thing. I'd quite like to see this happening.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
pose characters, but I
passed on picking up the Unicode spec over lunch (didn't want to throw my
back out... ;))
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even s
the one outside that, and so on)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 06:59 PM 8/1/00 +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd also like to see lexicals addressed by name through some sort of symbol
> > table-ish thing. Maybe:
> >
> >$PAD{my_var}[-1]
> >
> > would give a ref
rmal
spec doesn't make it a "real" language, though.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
l.
Could someone point me to a reference on these, please? My CS text
collection's rather spotty and doesn't cover this stuff.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
n care if the core doesn't even implement the
code to do anything, as long as there were hooks in.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski eve
eger compare if the object
matches the method's cached stash)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] h
en
>the feature is used by setting a %PERL_DEPRECATED{mod}{warning} value
>to 0 for default, 1 for once, 2 for never, etc, etc.
Dan
--"it's like this"--
At 04:58 PM 8/1/00 -0400, Steve Simmons wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:47:47PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Put together an RFC for it. (Soon!) This is a language topic, but it will
> > impact internals a touch, and I'd like to get as many of the "impact
>
peglob when used lvaluably,
>but *main::fred does.
Well, in perl 5 it doesn't, but that doesn't say anything about perl 6... :)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sug
At 09:38 AM 8/2/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I've been thinking that it'd be nice to support extended array/list stuff
> > to allow the rudiments of matrix operations into perl:
> >
> > @foo = @bar x 3;
> > @foo = @bar * 4
it's not relevant here.
I like perl's smart built-in IO just fine, thanks. :) Don't mind making it
better, but I do mind making it optional.
Dan
--"it's like this"-
ence and draw from their
experience as well.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and eve
or whatever) itself would be responsible for typechecking, so the
ops could just willy-nilly assign things and let the variables fend for
themseles.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugals
erl as their first language now, aren't there?
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:04 AM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 09:39:28PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I like perl's smart built-in IO just fine, thanks. :) Don't mind making it
> > better, but I do mind making it optional.
>
>If we're going to do
At 10:45 PM 8/1/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> I'd rather not do it for globals, though. (Actually I'd be just as
>happy to
>DS> see local go missing entirely, but that
At 12:24 PM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:01:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Right, I know the underside will be yanked and redone. (Hopefully with
> > async support on platforms that have it to do some I/O and processing
> > overlap) It&
ers is not enough
>reason to change it.
>
>
>--
>Chaim FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
be a keen idea! :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
tinue on the outer sub block...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
7;em as "opcode wannabes", but I like yours better. :)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
ntinue made sense as a way to tack on post-conditions, if that was all
that was getting tacked on. Since it seems other things are sensible, I
defer to your superior judgement in these things. (Plus I think it'll make
the folks at the office absolutely thrilled)
nd Japan (that I
know of, and I only know where a few folks are). That pretty much covers
the whole day...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAI
gt; whether it's a system call or not, you must use something that takes
>NT> into account the hindrance and the payoff.
>
>--
>Chaim FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >Tom Christiansen writes:
> >> What is the purpose of ghettoizing everying cohering topic? Making
> >> us subscribe to infinite lists to wear us down?
>
> >Yes.
>
> >If you really care about the topic, you'll join the list. If you
> >don't care, s
nsistors and wires,
while perl 5 & CPAN hand people sacks of ICs. Why not have perl 6 provide
quantum and analog devices as well?
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
copy rather than a flatten/unflatten operation, for example, or so
that "@foo=" dumps straight into the array)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Su
lower than calling an op.
I've got an PCR on this. :-)
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
onsible for the
broader area the WG lives in, will be ultimately responsible for saying No
definitively.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the *foo{THING} syntax to
get a reference to whatever's in the slot.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ith whether its shared. Package variables can be unshared
while lexicals are shared.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 09:03 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > More importantly, the more primitives that perl provides, the wilder
> > and more useful things people will be able to do.
>
>Not quite. Its the functions that are prov
At 09:06 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 07:21 PM 8/3/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Theoretically, we'd like to make subs run as fast
ould become untainted.
While this is certainly doable (heck, you can do it now with tied
variables), I'm not at all comfortable with a magic untainting variables. I
think it's a rather bad idea.
Dan
--"it
do this by sticking in an opcode
to set/unset the tainting status, as well as the warning status, and so on)
Taint checking is disabled in a no taint block. Whether we still set the
taint status on a scalar could depend on the -T switch, so data would still
be tainted in a no taint block.
be a portability
nightmare, and it's an internals thing anyway.
Don't sweat the internals for this. Figure out whether its a good or bad
thing based on the language merits, not the internals issues.
Dan
--&
hen we just assume it will.
If we know how a sub accesses @_, we can optimize appropriately. If we
don't know, odds are we're not doing the sorts of optimizations that would
need the information.
Dan
------"i
won't be much in the
on-the-fly-compile version (a 10s runtime with a 50s compile time's not a
good thing...) I'm hoping the optimizer will be able to get darned
aggressive when given free rein.
Dan
we don't need to change or extend it
much later.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
n some platforms (read: palm)" or "The
optimizer loathes eval/require/do FILE after BEGIN time with a passion you
couldn't imagine", but not evil.
Dan
------"it's like this"--
At 05:16 PM 8/4/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Indirect calls might not be a problem, depending on how much flow analysis
> > we can do in the optimizer. While that won't be much in the
> > on-the-fly-compile version (
At 01:30 AM 8/5/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 12:24:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:31 PM 8/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote:
> > > My suggestion is: declare "eval $scalar" as a bad guy.
> >
> > It's not just string eval. It&
At 09:38 PM 8/4/00 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This does complicate the job of the parser/lexer rather
> > considerably.
>
>Why? Isn't it 'just' a matter or making the lexer read from a
>hot-red
t us to do
*what*!?!?"), language designs. Get us a design and we'll do it.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
at he was talking about at first. Now I understand.
I don't think this'll be much of a big deal over and above BEGIN. (How much
of a pain that is is a separate issue)
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> At
so require
Clever People) can be done correctly without actually writing the code that
uses it...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECT
roper fix for the second type.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 09:34 PM 8/5/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote:
> >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use
> >>floating point numbers to return as much preci
something is kinda perlish.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ot;it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
posed, but I don't recall what it was.)
Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to hoist things to
outer scope levels internally (for when we return objects from subs) so it
might be worth generalizing things.
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL
sed into it. Presumably it'd get the original as a parameter
and return the new thing, or something of the sort.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even sa
At 03:30 PM 8/6/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:09 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1;# Hit everyone
> > > uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper
> > Yeah, I can see that. W
ld get a reference to the original and return a
>reference to the new value.
Works. We won't always be passing objects around, I suppose.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
y well might not.
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> I think I'd prefer to leave untainting to regexes.
>
>DS> What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically
>scoped
>DS> pragma--&quo
At 02:18 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From a language perspective, I have a scheme to allow us to yank all the
> > cruft (sockets, shm, messages, localtime...) out into separate libraries,
> > yet pull them in on d
an
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
teger array only.
If strict's off I don't see any reason to forbid bad assignments of 'known'
types--if someone, using the above example, did a "$foo[2] = 'bar'" I don't
see any reason not to make $foo[2] have a value of 0. (With a warning
emitted
l I/O calls would be non-blocking and context
>switching.
I meant select the perl construct, not select the low-level construct.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:35 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> The language semantics of tie strongly impact the internals. tie() is
>DS> basically a declaration that the rules are completely differen
nything at all_.
It can't access data the lexer's already tossed out. That's where the
current format format (so to speak) runs you into trouble.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
ha by next TPC. How alpha is, as always, an open
question, given that's almost a year off.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMA
done in modules. If
they yank formats out (which is just dandy by me) that means that some
means of providing format's functionality needs has to be designed in.
Dan
--"it's like this"--
ut filehandles or something also wouldn't be unreasonable.
This would necessitate the expansion of select to check for pending
events/coroutine writes/data, but that's likely to happen anyway, so...
Dan
--"
ince access to a tied varible has to be treated as a function call
rather than as access to data with known behaviours.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Su
s. It's a clever and
keyword-conserving hack to have open do a zillion different things, but it
might be better to have different creation/attachment methods for
conceptually distinct things.
Dan
--
because we have more *time* to optimize.
I don't, for example, want to pay an extra 30 seconds on each program
invocation to run the code through the optimizer. I would be perfectly
happy to do so, though, if the resulting code is frozen to disk so I didn't
pay it the next time.
out
into separate functions, and the doodad writers provide an interface to the
non-op functions, it means they don't have to worry about writing code to
do localtime however we do it, they can just call our function.
Dan
------
At 12:51 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically scoped
> > pragma--"use taint"/"no taint". (We could do this by sticking in an o
At 01:02 PM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of
> the
> > core entirely)
>
>Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then.
Damn straig
At 10:55 PM 8/6/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > But, if we toss refcounts, and split GC cleanup and
> > end of scope actions anyway, we need to have a mechanism to hoist things
> > out of the current scope.
>
>Why say hoist when we can say return? I c
ople the central focus and still perform well.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
when putting together the RFC for it, if someone even does.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
At 10:07 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:53 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>There are a wide range of tricky problems associated with deep copy and
>>deep compare. I like the idea, but circular references can make this
>>problematic even without externa
ing,
for example.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:27 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DS> At 10:07 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >> At 12:53 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >>> There are
, as long as enough Weird Magic is provided. :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it was read?
* Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it automagically at
read time?
* Is it worth the extra space per scalar to store the record separator (or
a pointer to the filehandle holding the record separator)?
Dan
---
--------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 02:29 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
>Dan Sugalski said:
> > Which brings up the questions:
> >
> > * What about scalars that didn't come from filehandles?
> > * Should the chomp function use the filehandle's current separator, or the
> >
feature. Even if it's something that
"most CS educated folks" ought to know (a category a number of us don't
necessarily fall into), it's handy to know where to look to brush up on the
details of the thing in question.
Dan
--
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Dan Sugalski said:
> > > > * Do we even want to allow after-the-fact chomps, or do it
> automagically
> > >at read time?
> > "Yes" is rather ambiguous.
>
> To clarify: "Yes", we (I) want t
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
> Ted Ashton said:
> > Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
> > >
> > > how do you tell the above two apart? by array do you mean only an array
> > > variable? then you can't chomp a list of scalar values or multiple
> > > arrays, etc.
> >
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> However, as you point out, there's no easy way to get the HASH(addr)
> part. If this RFC is accepted, we might need a special function for that
> (but I say stick it in Data::Dumper).
Please don't worry about this. It's diving too deeply into what at thi
On 9 Aug 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> =head1 TITLE
>
> All Perl core functions should return objects
While an interesting idea, it'll mean we have a half-bazillion different
types of objects floating around just from the core. The number of
different vtables needed to deal with this (alon
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> > If you take this, I won't be able to port the forthcoming Klingon.pm
>> > module to Perl 6!!!
>>
>> And this would be a bad thing how, exactly? :)
>
> I SHOULD KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND
But, but... I'm sitting! :-P
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Mike Pastore wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > If you feel the need, it should be possible to let you do this, or at
> > least a part of it for one or three ops, with a module. I think it might
> > be better to wait until
more) deep already.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ould get the language to do this it
>would be a tremendous step forward. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think it's that big a deal, but people do have a tendency to do
lost of Neat Things with features that are unexpected.
Da
At 09:24 AM 8/9/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
> >
> > It's an op. Arrays can be passed in any way we want.
>
>But as I already pointed out, we don't want to pass
uy who writes the core code) some headaches.
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ple think should do the object thing as time and effort
allow. They all might not be in perl 6.0.0 (And what are we going to call
the first dev release--perl 6.-1.0?) but could get added in as modules and
make it into perl 6.2.0 or something)
Dan
--
1 - 100 of 799 matches
Mail list logo
