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
At 9:12 PM + 12/8/03, Pete Lomax wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:35:59 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unqualified eq/cmp/lt are OK for two PMC operations,
I'm not convinced at all here. PMC comparison ops, afaict, are based
solely on the pmc instance/address
Well... no.
Here's a
At 11:52 AM 12/9/2003 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
may not branch to OK. (There's no requirement that high-level
comparisons require a PMC to be equal to itself)
Although committing such a confusing PMC to Parrot is certainly questionable.
-Melvin
At 12:40 PM -0500 12/9/03, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:52 AM 12/9/2003 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
may not branch to OK. (There's no requirement that high-level
comparisons require a PMC to be equal to itself)
Although committing such a confusing PMC to Parrot is certainly questionable.
I'm not
At 12:15 PM +0100 12/7/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Pete Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... only to find there are no such equivalents for ne, gt, and ge.
I've added these missing ops now. *But* there are a lot more missing:
Yeah, we need all the comparison operators for PMCs in both numeric
and
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:35:59 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:15 PM +0100 12/7/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Pete Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... only to find there are no such equivalents for ne, gt, and ge.
I've added these missing ops now. *But* there are a lot more
Pete Lomax writes:
I'm not convinced at all here. PMC comparison ops, afaict, are based
solely on the pmc instance/address
Here's a snippet to play with:
$P1 = new Array
$P1 = 2
$P1[0] = 1
$P1[1] = 1
$P2 = new Array
$P2 = 2
$P2[0] = 1
Pete Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is an eq_p_i_ic and an eq_p_ic_ic, but not an eq_i_p_ic or an
eq_ic_p_ic. So, I swapped the operands and it worked, but of course
not on an lt statement, so I switched the operands and inverted the
sense, only to find there are no such equivalents for
Pete Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... only to find there are no such equivalents for ne, gt, and ge.
I've added these missing ops now. *But* there are a lot more missing:
* all op_p_nc?_ic # op := eq, ne, lt, le, gt, ge
* all op_p_sc?_ic
* cmp_i_p_nc?
* cmp_i_p_sc?
And we don't support
I've started referring to ops/ops.num, in an attempt to figure out why
some of my pasm is getting rejected, and I've noticed a couple of
points:
There is an eq_p_i_ic and an eq_p_ic_ic, but not an eq_i_p_ic or an
eq_ic_p_ic. So, I swapped the operands and it worked, but of course
not on an lt
10 matches
Mail list logo
