On Dec 9, 2003, at 3:40 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:46 PM +0100 12/5/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:14 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
set I2, P1[Foo\x00i] # I1 == I2
gets currently the attribute idx (0) of $Foo::i.
Q: Should the
Dan Sugalski writes:
At 05:14 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
set I2, P1[Foo\x00i] # I1 == I2
gets currently the attribute idx (0) of $Foo::i.
Q: Should the assembler mangle the Foo::i to Foo\0i
I don't like it either, but the alternative is to impose an external
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add an isnull branch op:
isnull Px, destination
Done.
leo
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, we need all the comparison operators for PMCs in both numeric
and string versions. I'd like to throw a _str and _num suffix on
them, so we have:
eq_str
lt_num
cmp_str
Done. Tests wanted :)
leo
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better handle dependencies for make -j 4 builds.
This seems now to force rebuilds forever after opcode changes.
leo
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:37:22AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
I think a heirarchy is a good idea for namespacing in general. I've
always wanted to be able to tie namespaces in Perl 5. It would only
make sense that if I tie Foo::, that Foo::anything:: would also go
through that tie to get
At 12:38 PM +0100 12/10/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better handle dependencies for make -j 4 builds.
This seems now to force rebuilds forever after opcode changes.
Ah, damn. OK, we can back it out.
--
Dan
At 4:40 AM + 12/10/03, Pete Lomax wrote:
Can I ask a stupid question? Guess I'm going to anyway...
Is there much benefit to .const, over sticking a value in a register
and not modifying it? (which is what I've done to get round this)
These are the equivalent of C's #define constants, so
The Perl 6 summary for the week ending 20031207
Another week, another late summary. Luckily it's been a quiet week so I
should get this written faster than usual. As is traditional, we start
with perl6-internals
Parrot build system tinkering
Andy Dougherty and other discussed
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:28:00 -0500, Melvin Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) printf/sprintf - we do need it (and implemented in C) since it is a
staple and is the
reasonable hook for HLL implementors to do interpolation without having
to write a special native method or PMC for each language.
At 03:01 PM 12/3/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Pete Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following demonstrates that $I1 and .local int i map to the same
register in the output pasm code:
Yep. The problem seems to be the backward branch. When you put the
test sub after the end op, its
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PMC Compiler 2nd edition
... Melvin wondered if the time had come to replace the
existing ops2c and pmc2c with the newer versions. Leo thought that
pmc2c2 was definitely stable enough, but wasn't too sure about ops2c2.
On 2003-12-10 at 15:05:09, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Oh yes, if you've not been following, ^op (ie, the vector operators)
has become op which is, if nothing else, a right swine to write
in a POD C escape.
Eh, op is just a hack for people who can't type C»op«, like ANSI C
Dan Sugalski wrote:
If someone'd like to take a shot at making a nice OO wrapper for
Postgres, especially if they'd like to upgrade the postgres interface to
7.4, I would very much appreciate it. It'd be a nice demo, and a good
start on a DBI module for us. (And yeah, there's an element of do
At 01:37 AM 12/10/2003 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
At 05:14 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
set I2, P1[Foo\x00i] # I1 == I2
gets currently the attribute idx (0) of $Foo::i.
Q: Should the assembler mangle the Foo::i to Foo\0i
I don't like it either, but
At 12:16 PM 12/10/2003 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
*{Foo\0Bar\0Baz}-{var};
or
*{Foo\0Bar\0Baz\0var};
[snip]
I think Dan was proposing the first and that's fine.
I think the second would be a mistake.
Using a character that won't collide with HLL has a disadvantage
in the general
Quoth Melvin Smith:
It be a bit friendlier to make the scope resolution operator something
that at least 1 or 2 languages use as their own already; then all the rest
still have to mangle.
Uh oh, time to vote?
At 11:34 AM 12/10/2003 -0600, Robert Eaglestone wrote:
Quoth Melvin Smith:
It be a bit friendlier to make the scope resolution operator something
^^ ACK
that at least 1 or 2 languages use as their own already; then all the rest
still have to mangle.
Uh oh, time to vote?
Voting for
Voting for myself for having the most consecutive posts with bad grammar.
-Melvin
This may be the wrong forum to post this, but it has to
be said: the combination of humility, professionalism,
and competence in the developers of Parrot is amazing.
It is very refreshing and encouraging.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:26:04PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 12:16 PM 12/10/2003 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
*{Foo\0Bar\0Baz}-{var};
or
*{Foo\0Bar\0Baz\0var};
[snip]
I think Dan was proposing the first and that's fine.
I think the second would be a mistake.
Using a
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #24638]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24638
This patch mostly improves the embedded POD in Getopt_Long.imc and
As I write more PIR by hand...
*) The function call version of function calls is unprototyped, which
is fine (well, OK, I'd prefer it to be prototyped), but it doesn't
coerce its parameters to be PMCs. So foo(10, 20) pushes two
integers, rather than two PMCs, into the overflow array.
*) Args
A .sub that's prototyped (Dunno about the non-prototyped case) that
doesn't have a .pcc_begin_return/.pcc_end_return pair in it (empty is
fine) will cause parrot to crash'n'burn. Subs without a designated
return should be assumed to return nothing, the same as if an empty
begin/end pair was
At 4:28 PM + 12/10/03, Harry Jackson wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
If someone'd like to take a shot at making a nice OO wrapper for
Postgres, especially if they'd like to upgrade the postgres
interface to 7.4, I would very much appreciate it. It'd be a nice
demo, and a good start on a DBI
In Perl 6, how will it be possible to iterate through two arrays at the
same time? According to Apocalypse 4, the syntax is
for @a; @b - $a; $b {
According to the book Perl 6 Essentials the syntax is
for zip(@a, @b) - $a, $b {
Which of these is right? (of course, this being Perl,
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:44:15PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote:
:In Perl 6, how will it be possible to iterate through two arrays at the
: same time? According to Apocalypse 4, the syntax is
: for @a; @b - $a; $b {
:
: According to the book Perl 6 Essentials the syntax is
: for
26 matches
Mail list logo
