On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
> On 07/19/2015 02:21 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gregory Ewing
>> wrote:
>
>>> Personally I'd be fine with your initial syntax, but
>>> something else might be needed to get it past Guido.
>>> He didn't like
On 07/19/2015 02:21 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
>> Personally I'd be fine with your initial syntax, but
>> something else might be needed to get it past Guido.
>> He didn't like my 'cocall f()' construct in PEP 3152,
>> which is syntacticall
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 19/07/2015 17:24, MRAB wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-07-19 17:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
>>> wrote:
I've only seen one other application using HHMLL -- and that
was t
On 19/07/2015 17:24, MRAB wrote:
On 2015-07-19 17:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
I've only seen one other application using HHMLL -- and that
was the
Amiga file system.
Okay, I'll bite. What does HHMLL stand for? Google didn't answ
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:24 AM, MRAB wrote:
> On 2015-07-19 17:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've only seen one other application using HHMLL -- and that was
>>> the
>>> Amiga file system.
>>
>>
>> Okay, I'll bite. Wh
On 2015-07-19 17:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
I've only seen one other application using HHMLL -- and that was the
Amiga file system.
Okay, I'll bite. What does HHMLL stand for? Google didn't answer my
question instantly with the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
> I've only seen one other application using HHMLL -- and that was the
> Amiga file system.
Okay, I'll bite. What does HHMLL stand for? Google didn't answer my
question instantly with the first result, like it usually does. I even
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 9:18:32 AM UTC+5:30, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 17.07.15 02:46, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Out of the lengthy thread on tail call optimization has come one broad
> > theory that might be of interest, so I'm spinning it off into its own
> > thread.
> >
> > The concept
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> Possible alternate syntax:
>>
>> transfer func[, (arg1, arg2, arg3)[, {'kw1': val1, 'kw2': val2}]]
>>
>> This makes it very clear that this is NOT accepting an arbitrary
>> expression, but MUST be used with a singl
Chris Angelico wrote:
Possible alternate syntax:
transfer func[, (arg1, arg2, arg3)[, {'kw1': val1, 'kw2': val2}]]
This makes it very clear that this is NOT accepting an arbitrary
expression, but MUST be used with a single function and its arguments.
Downside: It doesn't look like a function ca
On 17.07.15 02:46, Chris Angelico wrote:
Out of the lengthy thread on tail call optimization has come one broad
theory that might be of interest, so I'm spinning it off into its own
thread.
The concept is like the Unix exec[vlpe] family of functions: replace
the current stack frame with a new on
Chris Angelico writes:
> # derived from Paul Rubin's example
> def quicksort(array, start, end):
> midp = partition(array, start, end)
Heh, forgot to include the base case, as someone pointed out. Oh well,
it's pseudocode, or something.
> transfer quicksort(array, midp+1, end)
Ove
On 17Jul2015 20:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
"exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
used in a rather d
On 07/17/2015 12:17 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
"exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
used in a rather different sense in Python. Current candidates:
"transfe
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 12:17:55 AM UTC-7, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
> > "exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
> > used in a rather different sense in Py
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
>> "exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
>> used in a rather different sense in Python. Current ca
On 7/17/2015 3:17 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
"exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
used in a rather different sense in Python. Current candidates:
"transfer"
On 07/17/2015 01:46 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Open for bikeshedding: What should the keyword be? We can't use
> "exec", which would match Unix and shell usage, because it's already
> used in a rather different sense in Python. Current candidates:
> "transfer", "goto", "recurse", and anything else
On 07/16/2015 04:46 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
Examples:
# derived from Paul Rubin's example
def quicksort(array, start, end):
midp = partition(array, start, end)
if midp <= (start+end)//2:
quicksort(array, start, midp)
transfer quicksort(array, midp+1, end)
e
Out of the lengthy thread on tail call optimization has come one broad
theory that might be of interest, so I'm spinning it off into its own
thread.
The concept is like the Unix exec[vlpe] family of functions: replace
the current stack frame with a new one. This can be used for explicit
tail recur
20 matches
Mail list logo
