Re: This week's summary
ti, 2006-01-03 kello 13:57 +, The Perl 6 Summarizer kirjoitti: Planet Perl Six is a handy news aggregator of several Perl 6 related sources. http://planet6.perl.org/ I believe that is actually http://planetsix.perl.org Thanks for the great summary! -- wolverian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: This week's summary
Piers~ On 11/30/05, The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I hopped into a taxi (and I use the word hopped advisedly) and repaired straightway to King's Cross and thence home to Gateshead, where my discomfort was somewhat ameliorated by the distraction of preparing this week's summary. I hope to be writing next week's summary as well because the week after I'll be moving house and don't quite know when I'll have my bandwidth back. That sounds fine to me. After next weeks I will start writing weekly summaries until you send me an email saying you are ready to resume. Don't hurry on my account; I know moving is a pain. Matt -- Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory. -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary
Re: This week's summary = Perl 6 perlplexities
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Perl 6 perlplexities Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6 parameter passing and signature stuff is going to be a big loss. People mostly disagreed with him. Rob Kinyon made a remark that chimed strongly To be sure, I never intended to claim that signature stuff is going to be a big loss, and I hope that I didn't. First of all I chose it solely as an example. Then the sense that I was trying to convey is that 90% of what has already been stuffed in it will already be the best thing since sliced bread, and that trying to fit the remaining 10% of all fancy types of parameter passing may not really make it better hence resulting in a _possible_ loss. Michele -- premature optimization is the root of all evil - Tad McClellan in clpmisc, Re: Whats the variable holding the dir seperator?
Re: This week's summary
On Nov 15, 2005, at 17:24, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13 string_bitwise_* Leo, it seems to boil down to a choice between throwing an exception or simply mashing everything together and marking the 'resulting bit mess' as binary. Warnock applies. I've today cleaned up the string_bitwise code a bit. These rules apply now: - usage of non-fixed_8 encoded strings in binary string ops throws an exception - else the result string has charset binary, fixed_8 encoded. Thanks again for your concise summaries, leo
Re: This week's summary
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Slightly tangentially to this, Dan Sugalski blogged a couple of weeks ago about his successes and failures with Parrot. The comments are worth reading -- there's a fair few more or less well founded complaints about the way the Perl 6 project has been managed, many of which seem already ^^^ ^^^ to have been addressed. Certainly the design process is rather more visible now. Comments that made me thought about the need for the verb to damanage, when I first read them! ;-) Michele -- Did I get that right? I know what I said, but I don't see how I can answer questions about how it seemed to you. Such propositions are independent of my axioms. - Dave Seaman in sci.math, Re: Is zero even or odd?
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer skribis 2005-11-04 14:34 (+): $_ defaulting for mutating ops Probably I have not been clear enough about that I no longer think this is a good idea. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Re: This week's summary
HaloO,
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Meanwhile, in perl6-language
\(...)
Oh look, a thread in p6l that's still going more than a fortnight later.
How unusual.
Is a long running thread considered a bad thing on this list?
I have grasped so far, that spawning a new thread after
some divergence from the original topic is considered nice.
This particular instance of the form is nominally about the
behaviour of \($a, $b) but various subthreads have drifted onto
discussions of context in general and meaningful whitespace. So far
there has been no discussion of the return value of
Pin.head.contents.grep - Angel $a {$a.is_dancing} but I'm sure it's
only a matter of time.
Please tell me if the particular pinhead is me. I'm actually about to reply
to Juerds question about my ranting about code backing the interpolation
of data into strings. Or is that considered counter productive
hairsplitting?
--
$TSa.greeting := HaloO; # mind the echo!
Re: This week's summary
TSa skribis 2005-09-27 10:15 (+0200): Is a long running thread considered a bad thing on this list? Just like how a post being Warnocked can have one or more of several causes, a long running thread can. Some are bad, some are good. As a thread becomes longer and more fanned out, it becomes hard to manage, and everyone has their favourite subthreads. This results in uninformed discussion, divergence and it getting even harder to reach concencus. I have grasped so far, that spawning a new thread after some divergence from the original topic is considered nice. Whenever you want to react on several posts simultaneously, consider it as a whole, and say what you have to say about it, usually with a new proposal, I do think it is better to start an entirely new thread. It can make a subject more accessible for outsiders, who have neither the time nor the will to read the original 50-message discussion. If this is the goal, the new thread should start off with a well structured explanation, instead of just referring to previous discussion. There are many huge differences between repying and starting a new thread, but still it can be hard to decide what to do. For me, the most noticeable difference is the time spent thinking and writing: for replies it's short, for new messages, it's long. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Re: This week's summary
TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HaloO,
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Meanwhile, in perl6-language
\(...)
Oh look, a thread in p6l that's still going more than a fortnight later.
How unusual.
Is a long running thread considered a bad thing on this list?
Nah, it's just hard to summarise.
I have grasped so far, that spawning a new thread after
some divergence from the original topic is considered nice.
Definitely.
This particular instance of the form is nominally about the
behaviour of \($a, $b) but various subthreads have drifted onto
discussions of context in general and meaningful whitespace. So far
there has been no discussion of the return value of
Pin.head.contents.grep - Angel $a {$a.is_dancing} but I'm sure it's
only a matter of time.
Please tell me if the particular pinhead is me. I'm actually about to reply
to Juerds question about my ranting about code backing the interpolation
of data into strings. Or is that considered counter productive
hairsplitting?
Just a reference to the old philosophical question of how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin. That and the fact that I occasionally get curmudgeonly
and hit the send button before I have second thoughts.
The weird thing is that the syntax I rolled there is soon to be the topic of an
original thread, once I've got the thing written up a little more.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 18:12:23 +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Allomopherencing Not satisfied with inventing Exceptuations, Yuval invented Allomopherencing as well. Just don't ask me what it means because I don't know. It was just a bad joke on Exceptuation's expense ;-) The thread asks whether disabling strong and compile-time-angry type ineferencing should ever be disabled, since we have much better allomorphism-oriented support for typing and introspection. -- () Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xEBD27418 perl hacker /\ kung foo master: /me spreads pj3Ar using 0wnage: neeyah!!! pgpfR0MdzmzgI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: This week's summary
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Writing pack, or something like it Michele Dondi wondered how to write pack-like functions in Perl 6, where the first argument is a string which specifies the signature of the rest of the function call. The proposal stumped me, but maybe you all can make something of it. It was not a *proposal* and it was not really about writing pack-like functions. It was really about... D'Oh! I can hardly summarize myself: well, let's say that it was wether about it will be possible in Perl6 to use what I judge to be elegant and natural functional-language-like constructs (possibly avoiding explicit intermediate variables with the exception of, say, $_) like *e.g.* (in this case) map()ping a list of values to a suitable list of curried (on the given values) closures, then reduce()ing it by a suitable (functional) composition and applying the result to the desired input. Not very concise indeed... well, just more verbose than conceptually complex, IMHO! BTW: I'm a male, Michele is Italian for Michael, Mikhail, etc. etc. ad libitum... Mike -- It was part of the dissatisfaction thing. I never claimed I was a nice person. - David Kastrup in comp.text.tex, Re: verbatiminput double spacing
Re: This week's summary
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:02 +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-09-17 Another week, another summary, and I'm running late. So: This week in perl6-compiler Bootstrapping the grammar Uri Guttman had some thoughts on bootstrapping Perl 6's grammar. He hoped that his suggested approach would enable lots of people to work on the thing at once without necessarily getting in each other's way. Adam Turoff pointed everyone at a detailed description of how Squeak (a free Smalltalk) got bootstrapped. http://xrl.us/c6kp This link doesn't seem to be working, and www.perl6.org doesn't have the archives of perl6-compiler online yet. Does anyone have a link to the archives that works?
Re: This week's summary
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:12:32AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:02 +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-09-17 Another week, another summary, and I'm running late. So: This week in perl6-compiler Bootstrapping the grammar Uri Guttman had some thoughts on bootstrapping Perl 6's grammar. He hoped that his suggested approach would enable lots of people to work on the thing at once without necessarily getting in each other's way. Adam Turoff pointed everyone at a detailed description of how Squeak (a free Smalltalk) got bootstrapped. http://xrl.us/c6kp This link doesn't seem to be working, and www.perl6.org doesn't have the archives of perl6-compiler online yet. Does anyone have a link to the archives that works? http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00076.html -- We strive to quickly network economically sound data in order to assertively leverage other's high-payoff intellectual capital to exceed customer expectations
Re: This week's summary
At 1:26 PM +0100 8/9/04, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Spilling problems The thing about writing naive compilers for naive languages is you end up with rather large Parrot subroutines. Dan's work project is generating ~6000 line subs. That was only for a program triggering degenerate behaviour in the register allocator. The biggest sub I can find off-hand is 69496 lines, from an original source language that stuffs about 400K of source text into a single routine... -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: This week's summary
ICU outdated Joshua Gatcomb noted that the ICU that comes with Parrot is, not to put too fine a point on it, old and buggy. The ICU developers have suggested that Parrot move to version 3.0. Josh proposed various ways of doing this. Leo wants ICU out of the Parrot CVS, but Dan's argued in the past that it should be in there because he doesn't want to force people to chase round fetching a raft of required libraries before they can build parrot. Some ideas to solve this: 1. Configure checks out ICU if needed. 2. Configure fetchs a night/week/month snapshot (from parrot homepage/ftp/whatever) of ICU if needed. I just thing that ICU in the Parrot CVS do not make sense. Kind regards, -- Alberto Simões Much as I hate to say it, the Computer Science view of language design has gotten too inbred in recent years. The Computer Scientists should pay more attention to the Linguists, who have a much better handle on how people prefer to communicate. --Larry Wall
Re: This week's summary
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley wrote: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? What's a math teacher? It's the right^H^H^H^H^HAmerican way to say maths teacher. You mean American and 'right' are not equivalent? Wow.
RE: This week's summary
sarcasm Of course American and Right are synonymous! Just ask OUR WONDERFUL GOD (I mean President) GEORGE W. BUSH. He'll tell ya' /sarcasm -Original Message- From: Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 6:49 AM To: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This week's summary Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley wrote: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? What's a math teacher? It's the right^H^H^H^H^HAmerican way to say maths teacher. You mean American and 'right' are not equivalent? Wow. The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (330-668-5000), and destroy the original message. Thank you.
RE: This week's summary
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Butler, Gerald wrote: sarcasm Of course American and Right are synonymous! Just ask OUR WONDERFUL GOD (I mean President) GEORGE W. BUSH. He'll tell ya' /sarcasm OK, gentlemen, this is both way off topic and starting to head into flame war territory, so I suggest that we either quietly drop it, or move it elsewhere. Simon PS Gerald, this isn't aimed at you specifically -- yours just happens to be the most recent message in the thread.
Re: This week's summary
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The infinite thread Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would be cool. Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? What's a math teacher?
Re: This week's summary
On 2004-07-28 at 20:55:28, Piers Cawley wrote: What's a math teacher? Oh, come now. You may refuse to *use* the Leftpondian short form, but pretending not to *recognize* it is a bit much. :) -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley wrote: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? What's a math teacher? It's the right^H^H^H^H^HAmerican way to say maths teacher. -- Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl and Parrot hacker Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The infinite thread Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would be cool. Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? OT IIRC there's a nice little book by Prof. Knuth about them... /OT Michele -- The trouble with engineers is that given the problem of knocking down a stack of 100 bricks, they will start at the top, and work all day removing them one at a time, while the mathematician will, after a momemt's thought, remove the bottom brick and be done with it. The trouble part, is having to brook the noise of the engineer boasting about how much harder he worked while one is trying to think about the next problem. - Bart Goddard in sci.math
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The infinite thread Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would be cool. Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? *ducks* -- Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl and Parrot hacker Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The infinite thread Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would be cool. Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? Disclaimer, I am no math theacher. :) This is a very interesting class of number that can be used to modelize games. It has designed by the _other_ Conway, the one of game of life fame. The expression surreal number was coined by Knuth. For more info, the wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number For the full story, read the book Numbers and Games. I have ordered it a few days ago so I can't comment on it. Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- stef
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:29:15 -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The infinite thread Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would be cool. Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher? *ducks* Just for those following along from home: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201038129/qid=1090866301/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7396197-3600620?v=glances=books - Kurt
Re: This week's summary
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[surreal numbers]
Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher?
Surreal Number theory was an attempt in the latter half of the
twentieth century to unify several existing sets of numbers (including
the complex numbers, generalized epsilon numbers, and cardinalities)
into a single notation and define addition and multiplication
operations on them that would be isomorphic to the standard addition
and multiplication on the complex numbers. Knuth's book on them is
very interesting and a good read.
I don't know whether surreal numbers ever really caught on in the
mainstream mathematics community or lead to any real advances in
number theory. Most undergraduate math curricula don't seem to teach
them as near as I can tell, except perhaps in the collateral reading.
One problem with them is that the notation is rather unwieldy. They
are interesting conceptually, however, despite their apparent lack of
practical usefulness, and serve as a proof of concept for the notion
of a unified number theory, although in practice the group theory of
modern algebra seems to unify things better, IMO.
Hey, you asked.
Surreal numbers in Perl would be way more cool than practical.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b-()}}
split//,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ --;$\=$ ;- ();print$/
Re: This week's summary
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, so the interview was on Tuesday 13th of July. It went well; I'm going to be a maths teacher. [...] As we all know, time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. If you found this mathematical summary helpful, please consider paying your tuition you ungrateful little bastards. ** Gurfle **
Re: This week's summary
--- The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, so the interview was on Tuesday 13th of July. It went well; I'm going to be a maths teacher. As usual, we begin with maths-geometry: In Mathematics last week, one Pythagoras suggested there might be a relationship between the sides of a triangle and its hypotenuse. Zeno continued to close on his destination, but once again only got halfway there. http://xrl.us/chjj (Squares) http://xrl.us/chjk (Zeno in mid-flight) As we all know, time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. If you found this mathematical summary helpful, please consider paying your tuition you ungrateful little bastards. Congratulations, Piers! The fate of a generation rests on your shoulders. =Austin
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer skribis 2004-07-20 14:46 (+0100):
Another subthread discussed interpolation in strings. Larry's changed
his mind so that $file.ext is now interpreted as $object.method. You
need to do ${file}.ext or $( $file ).ext. Or maybe $«file».ext
by analogy with %foo«bar». James Mastros pointed out that . is
rather ambiguous in a literal string; sometimes a full stop is just a
full stop.
My preference is $file\.ext. Clear, light and ascii.
Juerd
Re: This week's summary
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:15:49 +0200, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Perl 6 Summarizer skribis 2004-07-20 14:46 (+0100):
Another subthread discussed interpolation in strings. Larry'schanged
his mind so that $file.ext is now interpreted as
$object.method. You
need to do ${file}.ext or $( $file ).ext. Or maybe
$file.ext
by analogy with %foobar. James Mastros pointed out that . is
rather ambiguous in a literal string; sometimes a full stop is just
a
full stop.
My preference is $file\.ext. Clear, light and ascii.
Juerd
That's my preference too. But what if we have (perl5) ${n}th occurence ?
$n\th won't work because of \t special meaning...
I think, better if . would be interpreted as method call only after
\$ident, \@ident, \%ident or \ident, so
...leading dots?.. hm..
would not require \ before dots, but
text ~#~$obj.method.method2~#~ text
would be interpreted as it should.
I think, real period will be used more often than .topicsMethod
interpolating , and $(.topicsMethod) or $_.topicsMethod look nice
enough, so there's no need to add special behavior to . not preceded by
sigilled expression..
ah, one more problem. perl5-style ${var}.NotAMethod could save us in
some case, but what if you need to interpolate $var.method.NotAMethod ?
should it be ${var.method}.NotAMethod ?.. or
$($var.method).NotAMethod is only solution?
Re: This week's summary
Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Different OO models Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6. Urgle. I've completely failed to explain myself so as to be understood. That wasn't at *all* what I had in mind. It could well be that I didn't read things carefully enough.
Re: This week's summary
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Piers Cawley wrote: Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Different OO models Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6. Urgle. I've completely failed to explain myself so as to be understood. That wasn't at *all* what I had in mind. It could well be that I didn't read things carefully enough. Maybe, but that's what I got out of it as well. Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different OO models
Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects
inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6.
Urgle. I've completely failed to explain myself so as to be
understood. That wasn't at *all* what I had in mind.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b-()}}
split//,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ --;$\=$ ;- ();print$/
Re: This week's Summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Congratulations Ion, don't forget to send in a patch to the CREDITS file. $ grep -1 Ion CREDITS N: Ion Alexandru Morega D: string.pmc Thanks again for your summary, leo
Re: This week's Summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Mmm... Pie-thon Dan reminded everyone of the URL of the benchmark that's going to be run for the Pie-thon. If Parrot doesn't run it faster than the C implementation of Python, then Dan's going to get a pie in the face and he'll have to spring for a round of drinks for the Python Cabal (is there one? Could be a cheap round...). Of course, the plan is to have Parrot be faster than Python so Dan'll get to chuck a Pie at Guido. Either way, if you're at OSCON this year it should be fun. Right now, Parrot is some way from, well, running it. Unfortunately I will be missing this historic event, I'm sure there'll be videos after the fact but is there any chance of getting a live video feed of it? The suspense is killing me... -- Robin Berjon
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: Parrotbug reaches 0.0.1 Jerome Quelin responded to Dan's otherwise ignored request for a parrot equivalent of perlbug when he offered an implementation of parrotbug for everyone's perusal, but didn't go so far to add it to the distribution. I don't think it's been checked into the repository yet, but it'll probably go in tools/dev/ when it does. Later in the week, he actually got it working, sending mail to the appropriate mailing lists. With any luck the mailing lists themselves will be up and running by the time you read this. Some notes: - I've bumped up the version and we're now at 0.2.1 (I like to increase version numbers, it make me feel like work is going on fast :-) ) - following an irc discussion with melvin and dan, I've checked in parrotbug in parrot's root (and forgot to update MANIFEST - sorry again, Jens!) Thx for the summaries, Jerome -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: This week's summary
On 10 Feb 2004, at 14:09, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: I wonder how long it'll be before someone reimplements them in in PIR... or Perl6 perchance.
Re: This week's summary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Scott) writes: On 10 Feb 2004, at 14:09, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: I wonder how long it'll be before someone reimplements them in in PIR... or Perl6 perchance. Well, Perl6::Rules should be coming out soon, so that should help. -- The problem with big-fish-little-pond situations is that you have to put up with all these fscking minnows everywhere. -- Rich Lafferty
Re: This week's summary
At 12:36 PM -0500 1/13/04, Uri Guttman wrote: TP6S == The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TP6S Congratulations Dan TP6S Melvin Smith offered his congratulations to Dan for the TP6S first commercial use of Parrot. I think I can safely say we TP6S all echo those congratulations. shouldn't that be production use? It's not in production yet--we've just had the first big working proof-of-concept release. While it was important (showed that it was a viable option, and most of the runtime library is implemented) I'm definitely not ready to even beta this, let alone roll it out on the floor. Don't worry, when that happens I'll make a lot of noise. :) -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: This week's summary
TP6S == The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TP6S Congratulations Dan TP6S Melvin Smith offered his congratulations to Dan for the TP6S first commercial use of Parrot. I think I can safely say we TP6S all echo those congratulations. shouldn't that be production use? i don't recall ever hearing about a non-commercial but production use of parrot. anyhow, that is something that needs to be publicized somehow. parrot squawks in real life, code at 11! uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org
Re: This week's summary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Scott) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are trying to spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court decisions at the same time, it's still a ratf*ck. Eu need to get eurselves a Larry. Just put Damian on it, and there'll be a Lingua::EU::ConstitutionGenerator by Christmas. Probably with a back door making him king with droit du seigneur option in perpetuity. Has everyone *quite* finished? -- Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
Re: This week's summary
Sayeth the Summarizer: Asked for pithy comments, chromatic gave good pith, noting that if he 'had a test case from everyone who asked When'll it be done and code to pass a test case from everyone who said I'd like to help, but I don't know where to start...' then he'd happily check them into the repository. He also said that anyone who 'wants to revive the Perl 6 Documentation project, start turning Apocalypses and Exegeses into story cards, and story cards into tests' would be his hero. And mine too. He didn't mention http://p6stories.kwiki.org/ so I'll do that instead. Umm. Okay. I have started playing with the story cards on http://p6stories.kwiki.org and have most of the ones for the operators that were already there filled out. I would appreciate if some people smarter than me would make sure I had the gist of both XP and perl 6. I think I can also start working up some test cases, but I want to make sure my perl6-fu is strong. Are there any existing samples for me to use as templates for actually writing/formatting the test cases? I can handle the logic and such -- I just want to make sure the format is pleasing. Mik -- Mik Firestone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marriage is what happens when blackmail is no longer an option. My wife.
Re: This week's summary
Uri Guttman wrote: i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution. Bill Gates wrote: What is it with these Linux guys? i say we just sell them a license to use Windoze. :-) A
RE: This week's summary
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are trying to spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court decisions at the same time, it's still a ratf*ck. Eu need to get eurselves a Larry. Just put Damian on it, and there'll be a Lingua::EU::ConstitutionGenerator by Christmas. Probably with a back door making him king with droit du seigneur option in perpetuity. -- Peter Scott http://www.perldebugged.com/ *** NEW *** http//www.perlmedic.com/
Re: This week's summary
On 1/5/04 1:55 PM, Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? I'm not not licking toads... (Hey, the list needs traffic ;) -John
RE: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. Obviously you've been reading the proposed EU constitution. But DAMN, did you help write it, too? =Austin PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are trying to spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court decisions at the same time, it's still a ratf*ck. Eu need to get eurselves a Larry. I wonder if there's a precedent for that?
Re: This week's summary
AH == Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AH PS: While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that eu guys are AH trying to spin up 200 years worth of amendments and supreme court AH decisions at the same time, it's still a ratf*ck. Eu need to get AH eurselves a Larry. I wonder if there's a precedent for that? but he if worked on that at the rate he is churning out apocalypses, it would be another 200 years. this is not a knock on larry but a comment on how large and complex that eu constitution probably is. i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution. say a royalty on EU coinage? uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org
Re: This week's summary
AH == Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] but he if worked on that at the rate he is churning out apocalypses, it would be another 200 years. this is not a knock on larry but a comment on how large and complex that eu constitution probably is. AH Au contraire. His job would not be to write, per se, but to eliminate. AH Consider all the RFC's and then consider the synthesis he did to produce, AH e.g., Grammars. Or the new block constructs (loop, etc.). Occam is dead. AH Larry's still got a very sharp razor. but consider we made about 300 rfcs from a few dozen people. they must have way more than that in possible amendments, decisions, etc to consider. a sharp razor is great but it will dull soon enough whacking away at that madness. i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution. say a royalty on EU coinage? AH When you consider some of the issues, it's sort of obvious that AH they're trying *real* hard not to say, Look the Americans solved AH this problem already. Honestly, voting weights? What a pack of AH maroons. they wouldn't dare admit the US did something right in the political arena. hell, they have been around for hundreds of years before us and must know more about politics (especially the french! :). what we did was throw out all their stuff and work from a fresh slate with some very smart people at the top. sounds like the p6 pattern too. :) reminds me of the great line: in EU they consider a 100 miles a long distance, in the US we consider 100 years a long time. :) AH You're right about the IP licensing. Bill Gates is probably AH frothing at the mouth for not having a Constitution Template in AH the Euroversion of MS Word. he would want to own the IP for all the EU languages, period. uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org
RE: This week's summary
From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AH == Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] but he if worked on that at the rate he is churning out apocalypses, it would be another 200 years. this is not a knock on larry but a comment on how large and complex that eu constitution probably is. AH Au contraire. His job would not be to write, per se, but to eliminate. AH Consider all the RFC's and then consider the synthesis he did to produce, AH e.g., Grammars. Or the new block constructs (loop, etc.). Occam is dead. AH Larry's still got a very sharp razor. but consider we made about 300 rfcs from a few dozen people. they must have way more than that in possible amendments, decisions, etc to consider. a sharp razor is great but it will dull soon enough whacking away at that madness. Consider that the constitEUtion is about 250 pages long, and that the Constitution is almost 10 pages if you add in the amendments and print REAL big. Obviously, someone skipped over Vision, Scope, Requirements, Architecture, and possibly even HLD, and went directly to detailed design. I wonder if the eurobranch of the Perl Foundation would fund larry for a six week write us a constitution project? Do they even have IR(*) over there? i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution. say a royalty on EU coinage? AH When you consider some of the issues, it's sort of obvious that AH they're trying *real* hard not to say, Look the Americans solved AH this problem already. Honestly, voting weights? What a pack of AH maroons. they wouldn't dare admit the US did something right in the political arena. hell, they have been around for hundreds of years before us and must know more about politics (especially the french! :). Actually, recall please that the French Revolution and the surrounding confusion was the only thing which enabled the American revolution to succeed. (Contrast the first fifty years of the United States with the first fifty years of Mexico.) what we did was throw out all their stuff and work from a fresh slate with some very smart people at the top. sounds like the p6 pattern too. :) Indeed, a fair amount of Renaissance thought wound up influencing the USC. In the interval, there's been 200 years of thought on economic policy, human rights, and ethical behavior. What's disappointing to me is that so little of that has been reflected in the EUC. reminds me of the great line: in EU they consider a 100 miles a long distance, in the US we consider 100 years a long time. :) That's very good. I'm going to recycle it. Do you know the author? [In keeping with balance of trade: India is like a snake, with its head in the 20th century and its tail in the 17th century. Don't recall the author.] =Austin (*) IR = Initiative Referendum: A political mechanism where a small group of citizens may (via Initiative) collect signatures or somehow cause a question to be posed on a ballot. A Referendum is used to explicitly override the capacity of the elective houses by passing a question directly to the voters. California is probably the most egregious user of the IR mechanism: the recent ouster of the governor is one in a long line of controversial actions.
Re: This week's summary
According to Austin Hastings: When you consider some of the issues, it's sort of obvious that they're trying *real* hard not to say, Look the Americans solved this problem already. Three words: Second System Effect. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early. // MST3K
Re: This week's summary
AH == Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: reminds me of the great line: in EU they consider a 100 miles a long distance, in the US we consider 100 years a long time. :) AH That's very good. I'm going to recycle it. Do you know the author? dunno. i have heard it from several sources and i toss it out at the proper moments. most people get it too. :) uri -- Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs http://jobs.perl.org
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me? I think Perl 6's design 'in the large' will be pretty much done once Apocalypse 12 and its corresponding Exegesis are finished. Of course, the devil is in the details, but I don't doubt that the hoped for existence of a working Perl6::Rules by the end of April is going to provide us with a great deal of the leverage we need to get a working Perl 6 alpha ready for OSCON with something rather more solid ready by the end of the year. Parrot continues to amaze and delight with its progress; Dan tells me that he's about ready to roll out a large parrot based application for his employers, so it's approaching the point where 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? -- Lars Balker Rasmussen Consult::Perl
Re: This week's summary
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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? Knowing Piers, I would guess: optimistic. :) -Melvin
Re: This week's summary
Lars Balker Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me? I think Perl 6's design 'in the large' will be pretty much done once Apocalypse 12 and its corresponding Exegesis are finished. Of course, the devil is in the details, but I don't doubt that the hoped for existence of a working Perl6::Rules by the end of April is going to provide us with a great deal of the leverage we need to get a working Perl 6 alpha ready for OSCON with something rather more solid ready by the end of the year. Parrot continues to amaze and delight with its progress; Dan tells me that he's about ready to roll out a large parrot based application for his employers, so it's approaching the point where 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? Optimistic. Parrot being used for other languages too is a good thing. We're not going to see a full Perl 6 inside a year 'cos the design won't be finished (well, not at the detailed level it needs to be for a full implementation) and Ponie probably won't be finished because of the complexities of getting the backwards compatilibility with XS that's Ponie's raison d'etre. But there are other languages out there that don't have such stringent requirements. -- Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
Re: This week's summary
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 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? Knowing Piers, I would guess: optimistic. :) Have we met? You're right though. Unless you count our chats on IRC, no. I can deduce that much from IRC and summaries. We do read them, you know. :) -Melvin
Re: This week's summary
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 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-Perl scripting languages on top of Parrot. I'm confused, are you optimistic or pessimistic in that last sentence? Knowing Piers, I would guess: optimistic. :) Have we met? You're right though. Unless you count our chats on IRC, no. I can deduce that much from IRC and summaries. We do read them, you know. :) Thank heavens for that. I thought people printed them out and used them to roll cigarettes with. -- Piers
Re: This week's summary
Thank you for a lovely Christmas Present. Michael On Dec 24, 2003, at 2:37 AM, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20031221 Welcome one and all to the penultimate Perl 6 Summary for 2003. The nights are long, the air is cold, freezing fog made the journey home from watching *The Return of the King* a deeply fraught experience (though probably not as fraught for us as for the chap who obviously didn't see the roundabout in time and went straight over it). If you're in the southern hemisphere, feel free to ignore the foregoing flavour text. It should come as no surprise to you by now that we start with the internals list. Namespaces II Dan returned from a bout of paying work to finish up the current understanding of how namespaces are managed in Parrot. A namespace selector becomes a multidimensional key (using a multidimensional key instead of a single long namespace name makes for easier sharing of namespaces between languages; there's no need to go guessing what separator the other language uses in its namespace naming because that's essentially irrelevant at the Parrot level). Looking up a particular variable in a namespace is still a two step process, first get the namespace, then do the lookup within the namespace. Dan explained that this is a win because it should allow for holding onto namespaces in a register when dealing with multiple variables. Leo Tötsch wasn't entirely convinced by the new syntax introduced, and proposed a mechanism which used the standard syntax for accessing multikeyed structures with a proposed Namespace PMC. http://tinyurl.com/2wtkd Another keyed ops proposal Leo continues to make proposals for rethinking keyed ops. Somewhat surprisingly, Dan didn't entirely reject the latest one involving a possible new set of key registers. http://tinyurl.com/2za5t Leo adds threads Leo Tötsch checked in a patch to allow Parrot to spawn threads. As he admitted, there's a lot missing, but it's a start. He solicited comments and further pointers. Later in the week he asked for some design decisions related to making various of the interpreter's internal data structures thread safe. Elizabeth Mattijsen had several comments to make, based on experience with Perl 5's ithread system. In essence her suggestion was that as many things as possible should be made copy on write between threads. (I have a faint recollection of Nicholas Clark delivering a wonderful lightning talk/dance explaining his proposal for making Perl 5 use copy on write structures for ithreads. It's worth seeing if you get the chance...) http://tinyurl.com/3egyu http://tinyurl.com/yrjrm PDD03 and method calls Leo queried the design of Parrot's calling conventions for calling a method and proposed a slightly different convention with the object put in P5 rather than P2. Dan thought that the calling conventions documented was the right way to go, but didn't seem to convince everyone. http://tinyurl.com/2npnn Rolling back clone Leo pointed out that clone's semantics had got altered to take an uninitialized destination PMC as an argument back when the GC system was flaky. He suggested switching back to a version that creates the new PMC itself now that GC was working properly. Dan told Leo to go for it. http://tinyurl.com/35c57 Meanwhile, in perl6-language Um... sorry about this, but I'm punting on writing the promised Roles/Traits/Classes summary. I was planning on doing it today, but things have been hellish; I've spent about 8 hours fighting fires today rather than writing the summary. Sorry. Work on Perl 6's object system continues apace though; things are looking very good and powerful. By the way from now on I'll try and stick to Larry's usage of capitalizing 'Traits' when referring back to the Traits paper, and keeping it lower case when referring to Perl 6's compile-time traits. Runtime CHECK? Piers Cawley asked if Perl 6 modules that get loaded at runtime will have their CHECK blocks (or their equivalent) executed. Larry initially thought not, but Rafael Garcia-Suarez noted that Perl 5 shouldn't be held up as exemplary and that there was definitely a need for some kind of special block that would get run at the end of the compilation phase of any arbitrary compilation unit. http://tinyurl.com/2ytze but true Adam D. Lopresto wondered how the recent work on Roles, Properties and Traits fit in with already declared stuff like but true. Larry confessed that he was still thinking hard about this, but that he thought but wasn't powerful enough yet. http://tinyurl.com/2v2ef Acknowledgements, Announcements, Apologies Cross your fingers and toes,
Re: This week's summary
Michael Joyce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you for a lovely Christmas Present. Any time.
Re: This week's summary
A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-16 11:57]: bear in mind that the authors of the paper use the term 'trait' for what we're calling a 'role' (We already have traits you see). http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~black/publications/TR_CSE_02-012.pdf -- Traits paper I think it deserved mention that at least Larry has taken to capitalizing Trait when referring to the paper's idea of Traits that we call roles, and leaving trait lowercased when referring to traits of the Perl 6 fashion. I'm reasonably sure that Larry hadn't actually mentioned this at the point when I wrote the summary. -- Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
Re: This week's summary
* The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-16 11:57]: bear in mind that the authors of the paper use the term 'trait' for what we're calling a 'role' (We already have traits you see). http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~black/publications/TR_CSE_02-012.pdf -- Traits paper I think it deserved mention that at least Larry has taken to capitalizing Trait when referring to the paper's idea of Traits that we call roles, and leaving trait lowercased when referring to traits of the Perl 6 fashion. -- Regards, Aristotle If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough.
Re: This week's summary
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vocabulary If you're even vaguely interested in the workings of Perl 6's object system, you need to read the referenced post. Luke Palmer, worrying about people using Object related vocabulary in subtly inconsistent ways, posted a glossary explaining how OO terminology is used in a Perl 6 context. Casey West wrapped it up in a POD, which will, I hope, end up on dev.perl.org soon. Of course, there were a few corrections for subtleties, a few rethinks of the design so far, and general gratitude for at least having a baseline document that people could refer to. http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This should, of course, read: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Apologies for the confusion. -- Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Vocabulary If you're even vaguely interested in the workings of Perl 6's object system, you need to read the referenced post. Luke Palmer, worrying about people using Object related vocabulary in subtly inconsistent ways, posted a glossary explaining how OO terminology is used in a Perl 6 context. Casey West wrapped it up in a POD, which will, I hope, end up on dev.perl.org soon. Of course, there were a few corrections for subtleties, a few rethinks of the design so far, and general gratitude for at least having a baseline document that people could refer to. http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This should, of course, read: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or even: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] :-p Luke
Re: This week's summary
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley writes: The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This should, of course, read: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or even: http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] We have a winner!
Re: This week's summary
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley wrote: newsub and implicit registers [...] ops [...] that IMCC needed to track. Leo has a patch in his tree that deals with the issue. Sorry, my posting seems to have been misleading. The register tracking code is in the CVS tree. I seem to be doing rather well at misrepresenting you in the summaries recently. Maybe we should make that the new running joke.
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley wrote: newsub and implicit registers [...] ops [...] that IMCC needed to track. Leo has a patch in his tree that deals with the issue. Sorry, my posting seems to have been misleading. The register tracking code is in the CVS tree. Thanks again for your summaries, leo
Re: This week's summary
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Parrot Calling Convention Confusion ... -- I thought they were exactly the same as an unprototyped call, but you invoke the return continuation (P1) instead of P0, the other registers are set up exactly as if you were making an unprototyped function call. Unfortunately the call and return conventions are *not* symmetric - yet. S. Fdocs/ppds/pdd03_calling_conventions.pod. Well, yeah, but Dan's said they will be. [ Gives Dan a Paddingtonesque Hard Stare ]
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Parrot Calling Convention Confusion ... -- I thought they were exactly the same as an unprototyped call, but you invoke the return continuation (P1) instead of P0, the other registers are set up exactly as if you were making an unprototyped function call. Unfortunately the call and return conventions are *not* symmetric - yet. S. Fdocs/ppds/pdd03_calling_conventions.pod. Thanks for the summary and servus, leo
Re: This week's Summary
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Object Freezing [ ... ] ... The upshot is that we're doing it Dan's way; Glorious Leader continues to trump Pumpking Patchmonster. As this is a summary, abbove sentence is a summary as well. The reality is more complex. The final implementation will have parts from both POVs. Thanks again for your summaries, leo
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... spending the morning of your 36th birthday Happy birthday to you and us. l - A full year has passed, hasn't it? - eo
Re: This week's summary
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... spending the morning of your 36th birthday Happy birthday to you and us. Thanks.
RE: This week's summary
Piers Cawley: # Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could there # be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading # through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and # boiling them down into a summary? Happy birthday, Piers. Enjoy *that*. ;^) --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl and Parrot hacker Yeah, and my underwear is flame-retardant--that doesn't mean I'm gonna set myself on fire to prove it.
RE: This week's summary
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], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: This week's summary On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Brent Dax wrote: Piers Cawley: # Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could there # be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading # through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and # boiling them down into a summary? Happy birthday, Piers. Enjoy *that*. ;^) Just don't tell him that he's twice your age. (Which, come to think of it, I am as well... :) Pondering an Old Fogey Moment, Dan
Re: This Week's Summary
- Original Message - From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:42 AM Subject: This Week's Summary Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030810 Another week, another summary. How predictable is that? (...) Generic code generator? Not content with his efforts in porting Python to Parrot, Michal Wallace floated the idea of a generic code generator for parrot that everyone could use. Stephen Thorne liked the concept, but worried that it wouldn't necessarily play well with languages that allowed eval $aString. He proposed that, whatever the code generator got written in should be a language that would be self-hosting. Joseph Ryan argued that, instead of coming up with a new meta-language for the GCG (Generic Code Generator), we should use something like XML or YAML as a way of dumping the AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) with standardized node names. Dan (who has a 'deep personal loathing for XML') was all for just building a standard datastructure and passing that into the code generator. (ASTnode.pmc anyone?). He also suggested that having some way of doing AST transforms would be handy, as many languages would want to get hold of the AST and munge it in some way before it went any further (Lisp macros are the canonical example of this sort of thing). Following the discussion, Michal and Klaas-Jan Stol apparently spiked out a prototype that used s-expressions. Your summarizer wonders if there's any overlap between this and treecc. Maybe I've just misunderstood what treecc was all about. Yeah, in some way you're right. TreeCC is a program for managing tree data structures. The user can write the specification for the nodes (their layout: what fields do they contain) and the operations (if any) should be written. The program is very handy in that it handles memory stuff (allocation, deallocation, node constructors) and it checks if a defined operation is implemented for all node types (if not, an error is emitted). (for example, a print_node operation should be implemented for each node type; nodes can extend another node for easy inheriting) It should be possible to use TreeCC for designing an standard AST that can then be created by any compiler targeting Parrot. When one has this AST, (with a generate_code operation) one could just call the generate_code operation, and the compiler writer doesn't have to write a single line of IMC. However, TreeCC is written in C, so that might be a problem, because C isn't hosted by Parrot (yet :)
Re: This week's summary
Hi Piers, Before you're deluged... What's Ponie? Ponie is 'Perl On New Internal Architecture' Err, no, because then it would have been Ponia (presumably the singular feminine). The project is definitely Ponie (the neuter plural). And, for the record, the retro-acronym was actually: 'Perl on New Implementation Engine'. ;-) Damian
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley wrote: Small Perl task for the interested Want to get involved in the Parrot development process? Don't know much about Virtual Machine design and implementation? Do know Perl? Dan has a small but interesting task for you. At present, Parrot gets built without any compiler level optimizations turned on because files like tsq.c can't have any optimizations turned on (tsq.c is the thread safe queue module, which is annoyingly execution-order-dependent because it has to operate safely as interrupt code potentially interrupting itself). Dan would like a version of Configure.pl which can build a makefile (or whatever build tool we end up using) with per-C-file compiler flags, and it needs to be possible to override those flags, per file, by the platform configuration module. Hmm, I'm only a lurker, but that looks *very* suspect to me. Some compilers may choose to reorder even without optimization turned on. I'd say that it is a bug in Parrot if it requires optimization to be off for this code - how many different compilers have you tried? -- Alan Burlison --
Re: This week's summary
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More CPS shenanigans I get the strong feeling that Leo Tötsch isn't entirely happy with the new Continuation Passing Style regime. No, I'm really happy with CPS. Restoring the whole context by invoke'ing the return continuation is a very elegant and efficient way to do it, not speaking from tail calls ... He's worried that the P6C tests break, ... albeit this is still an issue. Nobody answered, if we need another Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ... ... and that CPS subs are some 3 times slower for calling the sub. ... while this is solved. Jonathans patch that went in originally had this bad performance. But with separating the Sub/Continuation setup from the actual subroutine call (which amongst other things my patches did), performance is back again at the old level. In fact the current CPS implementation is faster then the old invoke/ret scheme. I estimate the final speed, when all needed context things are saved, to be about the same as invoke/ret w/o much context saving. Whee! My first anniversary! Congrats and thanks for your great summaries. leo
Re: This week's summary
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He's worried that the P6C tests break, ... albeit this is still an issue. Nobody answered, if we need another Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ... I'd say no. P6C is now compiling to an obsolete architecture. While we should all step back and be impressed at how well Intel has maintained backward compatibility in the x86, there's no particular reason we should do so ourselves. Rather, someone (me) needs to port P6C to the new machine. Whee! My first anniversary! Congrats and thanks for your great summaries. Seconded. /s
Re: This week's summary
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:14:52AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote: [...] Nobody answered, if we need another Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ... I'd say no. P6C is now compiling to an obsolete architecture. While we should all step back and be impressed at how well Intel has maintained backward compatibility in the x86, there's no particular reason we should do so ourselves. Rather, someone (me) needs to port P6C to the new machine. /me shows ignorance yet again. For those of us who are not hardware types...what is the new machine? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that, by the time Parrot is finished, it WILL have massive market penetration? Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whee! My first anniversary! Congrats and thanks for your great summaries. Seconded. Thirded. Although the doings of the internals list fascinate me, they are usually totally over my head, so I long ago unsub'd. It's great to be able to follow along via the summaries. --Dks
Re: This week's summary
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote: /me shows ignorance yet again. For those of us who are not hardware types...what is the new machine? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that, by the time Parrot is finished, it WILL have massive market penetration? The machine they're talking about is parrot. A virtual machine, but a machine none the less. The new machine is the new calling conventions recently implemented. andrew -- Aquarius: (Jan. 20 - Feb. 18) Heartbreak is in the stars for you this week when the woman of your dreams confesses she cannot love a man with such an unholy appetite for pie.
Re: This week's summary
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:04:29PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote: /me shows ignorance yet again. For those of us who are not hardware types...what is the new machine? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market The machine they're talking about is parrot. A virtual machine, but a machine none the less. The new machine is the new calling conventions recently implemented. andrew Ah. Of course; I got confused by the x86 references and took them too literally. Thanks for setting me straight. --Dks
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Multimethod dispatch?
Adam Turoff asked if multimethod dispatch (MMD) was really *the* Right
Thing (it's definitely *a* Right Thing) and suggested that it would be
more Perlish to allow the programmer to override the dispatcher,
allowing for all sorts of more or less cunning dispatch mechanisms
(which isn't to say we could still have MMD tightly integrated, but it
wouldn't be the *only* alternative to simple single dispatch). Luke
Palmer gets the Pointy End Grandma award for pointing out that Perl 6
is a 'real programming language now' (as Adam pointed out, Perl's been
a 'real' programming language for years), inspiring a particularly pithy
bit of Cozeny. As far as I can tell, Adam wants to be able to dispatch
on the runtime value of a parameter as well as on its runtime type (he's
not alone in this). Right now you either have to do this explicitly in
the body of the subroutine, or work out the correct macromantic
incantations needed to allow the programmer to use 'nice' syntax for
specifying such dispatch.
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what Adam is after, this has come up
before (I think I asked about value based dispatch a few months back)
and I can't remember if the decision was that MMD didn't extend to
dispatching based on value, or if that decision hasn't been taken yet.
If it's not been taken, I still want to be able to do
multi factorial (0) { 1 }
multi factorial ($n) { $n * factorial($n - 1) }
That's pretty much correct.
I've been musing on dispatching over the last week, and I've come
up with a few scenarios:
- pure type-based (match a method's signature, modulo superclasses)
- pure value-based (scalars with specific values)
- mixed-mode (RightMouseClick class, with 'control' modifier set/unset)
- pre-/post- methods; chains of pre-/post- methods
- AOP-style pre-/post- methods that can come and go at runtime
- Eiffel-style contract checking/enforcement
- roll-your-own inheritance mechanisms (see NEXT.pm)
I've also considered side-effect based dispatching for lack of a better
term: Consider an object with a whole gaggle of methods that need to check
whether the database is up before continuing. All of them fail similarly
with a database is down error. Why *not* factor that out into a
different set of multimethods that execute only when the database is down?
Now consider what happens if the database handles are not parameters to
each method call, but slots in the object or stored globally...
There are a few other, admittedly weird scenarios where this kind of
behavior would be desirable. All of them exhibit an AOP-ish quality.
Anyway, as Piers summarized, my concern is that if there's only two types
of dispatching, it may be artificially limiting. I'm guessing that if I
can think of three dispatching behaviors, then there may be five, and if
there really are five then there just might be as many as ten or more.
Therefore the simple dispatch/type-based MMD dispatch duality limits more
than it empowers.
I don't think this is really a problem to be solved in the domain of
macro expansion or syntactic warpage. Writing classes to handle these
rules feels like the way to go. Whether or not MMD as it's been sketched
is hardwired into the language (e.g. for performance) is less important to
me than the ability to plug in different (levels of) dispatching behaviors.
Z.
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Adam Turoff wrote: - roll-your-own inheritance mechanisms (see NEXT.pm) On a related note, you might also want to take a look at CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System) where it talks about method selection. They've got a pretty clear and general model that describes every imaginable (and unimaginable) thing you'd want to do with dispatch. It's broken into 3 steps, any one of which you can customize: - find all applicable methods - sort them in order of specificity - apply some kind of combining operation to this list (e.g. select 1st) Granted, this is hardly efficient, and from what I've seen you need to be careful in how you use MMD to get decent performance in Lisp. But it's still helpful in laying out the design space. /s
Re: This week's summary
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Multimethod dispatch?
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what Adam is after, this has come up
before (I think I asked about value based dispatch a few months back)
and I can't remember if the decision was that MMD didn't extend to
dispatching based on value, or if that decision hasn't been taken yet.
If it's not been taken, I still want to be able to do
multi factorial (0) { 1 }
multi factorial ($n) { $n * factorial($n - 1) }
That's a bad example, as it's really not MMD. It's a partially
pre-memoized function instead.
Which brings up a issue. Is it really MMD if you're only dispatching on
a single invocant? Most of the examples I've seen for MMD so far use
only a single invocant and are really either regular dispatch or simple
overloading instead. MMD only becomes really interesting if you
have multiple invocants possibly with best-match signature matching
involved.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re MMD [was Re: This week's summary]
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 07:13 AM, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what Adam is after, this has
come up
before (I think I asked about value based dispatch a few months
back)
and I can't remember if the decision was that MMD didn't extend to
dispatching based on value, or if that decision hasn't been taken
yet.
If it's not been taken, I still want to be able to do
multi factorial (0) { 1 }
multi factorial ($n) { $n * factorial($n - 1) }
The most recent semi-official opinion given onlist, AFAIK, was from
Damian on 3/13/03:
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Speaking of multis and constants, Greg McCarroll wondered on IRC if
this would work:
multi factorial (Int 0) { 1 }
multi factorial (Int $n) { $n * factorial($n-1) }
Probably not. We did discuss whether multimethods should be able to be
overloaded by value, but concluded (for that week, at least ;-) that
this might prove syntactically excessive.
See the rest of his message for a marginally scary workaround.
MikeL
Re: MMD [was Re: This week's summary]
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 09:19 AM, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
multi factorial (0) { 1 }
multi factorial ($n) { $n * factorial($n - 1) }
That's a bad example, as it's really not MMD. It's a partially
pre-memoized function instead.
It's MMD if you think of the number 0 as being a subclass of Cint
or Cnum. In other words, you have an Cnum class, and then a
subclass of Cnum that binds the value to always be zero.
In a not-too-twisted fashion, you can think of any constant as being a
subclass of its base type, overridden to store exactly one possible
value. It's like instance-based (classless) inheritance, which we
haven't discussed much, but which I hope we eventually get to, because
it's bloody useful... Sigh...
Which brings up a issue. Is it really MMD if you're only dispatching
on
a single invocant? Most of the examples I've seen for MMD so far use
only a single invocant and are really either regular dispatch or simple
overloading instead. MMD only becomes really interesting if you
have multiple invocants possibly with best-match signature matching
involved.
I think it's a matter of semantics: a single-invocant routine is still
a multi, and still semantically MMD, because it uses the same
internal dispatcher as an N-invocant one, and checks the same list of
possible variants. So you can have:
multi bar (Baz $b : ...); # one invocant
multi bar (Foo $f : ...); # one invocant, but different!
multi bar (Foo $f, Baz $b : ...); # two invocants
All three of those are multimethod variants of a routine named Cbar.
The MMD mechanism has to determine which of those three variants to
use, based on the invocant(s) -- of which there may be one, or several,
for any given call to Cbar. Even if there only happens to be one
invocant, it's still the same dispatcher, sifting through the same
possible variants.
The single-invocant Cmulti thing I still find confusing at this point
is that, for example, you can't actually have Cmultimethods! That
is, you can't do this:
class Foo {
method bar (int $i);
method bar (str $s); # ERROR
method bar (str $s1, str $s2);
}
You'd have to do this:
class Foo {
multi bar (Foo $self, int $i : ); # semicolon optional
multi bar (Foo $self, str $s : );
multi bar (Foo $self, str $s1, str $s2 : );
}
Which, internally, makes some sense -- they have to go to a more
complicated dispatcher than normal methods -- but is semantically icky,
IMO, and I hope/wish we could find a better way of expressing that.
Perhaps E6 will help.
MikeL
Re: MMD [was Re: This week's summary]
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
multi bar (Foo $self, int $i : ); # semicolon optional
pedantic
I think you meant colon optional. The semi-colon is, I think, a
syntax
error. You need the yada-yada-yada thing: {...}.
/pedantic
Sigh. Yes, thank you. This, not that:
multi bar (Foo $self, int $i : ) {...} # colon optional
It's been a bad day. :-/
MikeL
Re: This week's Summary
Apologies for nitpicking, but you misspelled my name as Mattijs 4 times in the summary. The right spelling is Matthijs :-) -- Matthijs van Duin -- May the Forth be with you!
Re: This week's Summary
Matthijs van Duin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apologies for nitpicking, but you misspelled my name as Mattijs 4 times in the summary. The right spelling is Matthijs :-) Argh! Kill me now. Please. Damn, damn and double damn. I say, Simon old chap, you couldn't fix that on the perl.com site could you? Expect an apology in the next summary to go with this one. I'm very, very sorry. -- Piers
Anti-globalization (was Re: This week's summary)
Dynamic scoping (take 2) ... a system of implicit argument passing ... Larry pointed out [an error about threads] The system of implicit argument passing was intended to eliminate the need to use globals. I was wrong about threads but that doesn't change my view that globals are mostly evil. Larry went on to discuss some rather splendid extensions of the currying concept: use Dog.assuming(tail = cut short, ears = cut_long) my $little_dog = Dog.where_oh_where(); Which is rather cute. Indeed. Currying looks like an ideal route to eliminate the need for globals, but it needs to be extended beyond what Larry has so far mentioned to pull that off. -- ralph
Re: This week's summary
There's something wrong with your links to the messages in the documentation list. Whenever I click on one, I get the message Unable to find thread. Please recheck the URL. Joe Gottman
