Summary: An ordered hash that does not support deletes could cause a
user visible bug. At a minimum it should support the special case of
delete that is supported by the Perl each() operator.
Details: This Week in Perl 6, May 25, 2005-May 31, 2005
Following google SoC and TODO item,
https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=33922, here is the
scheme proposal for a new parrot GC (many thanks to leo for his help).
=
In order to allow more powerful GC schemes, we need to
Woops, sorry.
This mail was not meant to be send to the list.
jens
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 15:21, Jens Rieks wrote:
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 13:38, Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
Wenn du das noch vor deiner Abreise liest:
Autrijus wusste gerne in etwas, was du in deinem Vortrag an Perl6
i'm no gc expert, but here's my comments after discussions with
alexandre on #parrot.
On 6/8/05, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following google SoC and TODO item,
https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=33922, here is the
scheme proposal for a new parrot GC (many thanks to
tuned dynamically, as in at run-time? alexandre mentioned this may
be possible on #parrot, but there may be trouble with decreasing the
generation count. i don't know if run-time tuning of the generation
count is necessary, but if so, i imagine that decreasing the count at
run-time could be
jerry gay wrote:
i'm no gc expert, but here's my comments after discussions with
alexandre on #parrot.
On 6/8/05, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since threading issues haven't been mentioned here, i thought i'd make
sure they get discussed. now, if someone could say something
Making some modifications to the tcl PIR, I just got the following error:
(cd ../../ ./parrot --output=languages/tcl/lib/tcllib.pbc
languages/tcl/lib/tcllib.imc)
make: *** [lib/tcllib.pbc] Error 138
running through gdb, I see:
(gdb) run languages/tcl/lib/tcllib.imc
Starting program:
Tolkin, Steve wrote:
Summary: An ordered hash that does not support deletes could cause a
user visible bug. At a minimum it should support the special case of
delete that is supported by the Perl each() operator.
The proposed ordered hash ist mostly used for Parrot internals. If a
user
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
So we add a level of indirection: objects consist of a header and the
actual data. Headers are allocated once and for all at object creation
and do not move. [...]
The big disadvantage of this approach is that we use one or two words
(if objects need to know where their
Maybe someone can translate this:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/651433.html
to parrot's usage (and troubles) of continuations.
leo
William Coleda wrote:
Making some modifications to the tcl PIR, I just got the following error:
The recent change (r8292) WRT freeze/thaw might have impacts on existing
PBCs.
To be sure please make realclean and rm existing .pbc.
Thanks,
leo
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
it apparently can get more confusing. I don't think we sorted out all the
possibilities, but Nick C. was the last one fiddling with it.
I didn't actually try to work out all the possibilities. I managed to avoid
the problem by
Please
how can I call C++ from Perl in code? I can not find how to
complete same dll library or some like this. thanks Tomas
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 13:38, Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
Wenn du das noch vor deiner Abreise liest:
Autrijus wusste gerne in etwas, was du in deinem Vortrag an Perl6 zeigen
wirst, damit es nicht allzuviel Ueberschneidungen mit seinem Vortrag gibt.
Slides o.ae. wuerden ihn
Sam Vilain wrote:
AIUI, another effect of adding another indirection to every pointer lookup,
is that it will place a little extra stress on the memory caching systems,
as two regions will need to be accessed continually.
Yes, that's of course true. But please compare:
now
On 6/8/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, it outputs:
Foo
Foo
# dies
Yep. My mistake.
If that works, then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = - $retval { return $retval }
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:21:38PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: A06 and S06 are in disagreement about the caller builtin, and I need
: help understanding either one.
:
: A06 [plus updates] stipulates this signature for caller:
:
: multi *caller (?$where = ?CALLER::SUB, Int +$skip = 0, Str +$label)
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:57:14PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: What I'd like to see for Perl 6 (and I'm not sure if this exists
: already), is some sort of minimal event manager.
There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
around in Perl 6. The main trick will be
Adam Kennedy skribis 2005-06-08 15:57 (+1000):
The number of events I'm talking about would be extremely low, pre and
post fork being one.
I think they're much more useful being two.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:29:33PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
around in Perl 6. The main trick will be to hide this from the people
who aren't interested. The other trick will be to actually spec it,
since up till now
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code can be interpreted as
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block
Piers Cawley wrote:
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code can
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
[..] then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = - $retval { return $retval }
For the records: the return here is the essential ingredient, right?
Without it the
Piers Cawley wrote:
[..] then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = - $retval { return $retval }
For the records: the return here is the essential ingredient, right?
Without it the block would be evaluated or optimized away to an
Larry wrote:
Okay, I've made up my mind. The err option is not tenable because
it can cloak real exceptions, and having multiple versions of reduce is
simply multiplying entities without adding much power. So let's allow
an optional identvalue trait on operators. If it's there, reduce
can
Luke Palmer wrote:
Says not:
Boo
Boo
Boo
...
This is clear, but I would expect the output
Boo
42
because the return value of foo is a ref to a block that
makes the caller return 42. This is written in my current
Perl6 as
foo:( : -- Block -- 42)
The question is when
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:37:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
: BTW, is - on the 'symbolic unary' precedence level
: as its read-only companion \ ?.
No, - introduces a term that happens to consist of a formal signature
and a block. There are no ordinary expressions involved until you
get
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:40:49AM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: So, to clarify again, if $var is undefined, then the assignment:
:
: $var op= $value;
:
: is equivalent to:
:
: $var = (op.does(identval) ?? op.identval() :: undef) op $value;
:
: Correct?
:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:52:55PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Okay, I was referring more to the implementation. How do we tell apart:
:
: 3 4 = 5 == 5
:
: From
:
: 3 lt 4 = 5 != 5
:
: ?
As long as the actual arguments aren't allowed to be lazy/thunky/iteratey,
they can just be
A06 and S06 are in disagreement about the caller builtin, and I need
help understanding either one.
A06 [plus updates] stipulates this signature for caller:
multi *caller (?$where = ?CALLER::SUB, Int +$skip = 0, Str +$label)
returns CallerContext { ... }
In S06 it's (I infer):
multi
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 10:22:16PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: two quick questions:
:
:
: Are multi submethods allowed?
Presumably.
: my $x = undef;
: my $y = $x.some_method;
: # $y now contains an unthrown exception object, saying that undef
: # doesn't
Damian Conway wrote:
So, to clarify again, if $var is undefined, then the assignment:
$var op= $value;
is equivalent to:
$var = (op.does(identval) ?? op.identval() :: undef) op $value;
Correct?
Might I add that it should read
$var = (op.does(identval) ??
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
sub foo (Code $code) {
my $return_to_caller = - $ret { return $ret };
$code($return_to_caller);
return 23;
}
sub
Well,
does using - as blockref creator also give anonymous scalars?
$y = - $x { $x = 3; $x }; # $y:(Ref of Block of Int)
BTW, is - on the 'symbolic unary' precedence level
as its read-only companion \ ?. Are they pure macros?
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code can be interpreted as a
much smarter version of
sub foo()
{
With my occasionally-stated preference for keeping the Perl 6 core
slimmer than it already is, I feel a little silly about suggesting new
features for P6, but I'd like to stimulate debate on one that I'd like
to see.
Last year I was having some issues with a large web application that
needed
The Perl 6 summary for the week ending 2005-06-07
Crumbs. I've remembered to write the summary this week. Now if I can
just remember to bill O'Reilly for, err, 2003's summaries. Heck, it's
not like waiting for the dollar to get stronger has paid off.
Ah well, no use crying over
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:51:34PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Yeah, that's pretty. But that will bite people who don't understand
: continuations; it will bite people who don't understand return; it
: will even bite people who understand continuations, because they can
: be made in such an
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:04:30PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:29:33PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
: around in Perl 6. The main trick will be to hide this from the people
: who aren't interested.
Yesterday, hide gave me some sweet example code to use
HTTP::Server::Simple and Test::WWW::Mechanize to test Rubric's CGI bits.
I've started working with them, and they make me happy.
I've realized that the server, which is forked from the test script,
doesn't have its usage show up in
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Yesterday, hide gave me some sweet example code to use
HTTP::Server::Simple and Test::WWW::Mechanize to test Rubric's CGI bits.
I've started working with them, and they make me happy.
I've realized that the server, which is forked from the test script,
doesn't have
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 17:18, Deborah Pickett wrote:
You haven't convinced me, but rather than flog a dead horse,
I'll just suggest that we both reserve the right to say I
told you so when there are several years' worth of Perl 6
code out there, and we see how common our respective examples
43 matches
Mail list logo
