John Porter wrote:
undecorated variable names suffer from this showstopping weakness:
they can't be interpolated. Unless we change other aspects of perl's
syntax to support it, that is -- maybe s/${x}/5/. Now, maybe we can
live without variable interpolation; but I'd bet most perl
David L. Nicol wrote:
I am not suggesting dropping the magic signifiers from the beginning of
Perl scalars and containers. In fact, I resent these insinuations
(first Nathan's, now yours) that I am among those who suggest dropping the
decorations from perl scalars. I am not among that
Nathan Wiger wrote:
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace
# all the eckses in $_ with fives.
Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to be
barewords.
Misstating my position, when I take one, is and will
s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace
# all the eckses in $_ with fives.
Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to
be
barewords.
I think it's a sane decision -- IMHO barewords shouldn't be allowed to
And how about:
int length = 256 ;
and, if that's legal, what does:
print "I wonder what this is : " . length ;
do?
I imagine the first order of business for the C JIT team would be
some conversion operators. Numeric types stringify into decimal
David L. Nicol wrote:
A bareword inside doublequotes is not interpreted, in Perl or C.
No; a "bareword" in quotes (any kind) is not a bareword.
--
John Porter
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
s/x/5/; # this is still going to replace
# all the eckses in $_ with fives.
Why? This is an arbitrary decision if you've declared variables to be
barewords.
Anyways, I'm done harping on this issue. I think a single, simple syntax
is good. You
I don't know exactly how this message got marked "unread" again,
No, here it is, the server at Sun has decided to send it again,
No it didn't. :-) Those are cascading headers (read the "by" field),
Sun's internal mail system has 3-4 hops and 2 firewalls to go through.
Received:
from
Ken Fox wrote:
Perl is more like lisp with a good syntax -- in other
words about as far from C as you can get.
I agree 100%.
--
John Porter
Uri Guttman wrote:
the best fit is the TIL (threaded inline code) model we have
discussed.
Yes!
--
John Porter
Nathan Wiger wrote:
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
my dog $spot;
to
dog spot;
If we only allow this where enough info is available to allocate dog-sized
pieces of memory directly, Perl can blaze through the code that deals with
dogs.
I don't see what barewords gain
Nathan Wiger wrote:
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
They gain us compliance with the whims of the people who like barewords
for variable names. You may or may not find that to be a good thing.
It's not just that I don't think dropping $'s is a good idea, but that
is the general consensus as
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
No, that would be
dog $spot;
No, it wouldn't:
$r = new CGI;# CGI-new
See?
You can have your general consensus, I'm not in his army.
Well, unfortunately I think you're doomed to fail then. You're forcing
constraints on yourself that Perl cannot
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I do want to have a set of C/XS/whatever sources as part of the test suite
as well--right now perl's test suite only tests the language, and I think
we should also test the HLL interface we present, as it's just as
important in some ways.
Ken Fox wrote:
Trolling?
No, I'm not, it's the direction that RFC 61 ends up if you let it
take you there.
fast perl6 becomes, as well as slicing, dicing and scratching your
back, a drop-in replacement for gcc.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[perl6-language removed from the follow-up]
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
I want to see Perl become a full-blown C/C++ JIT. Since Perl is for
a large part a compatible subset of C I don't see this as unrealistic.
Trolling? First, Perl is more like lisp with a good syntax -- in other
words about as
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
No, I'm not, it's the direction that RFC 61 ends up if you let it
take you there.
You seem to be confusing:
(1) linking C code with Perl
with
(2) compiling Perl to C code
There is a world of difference. Swig does (1) pretty well already.
If you want a first
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
Perl looks, and AFAIK has always looked, like "C plus lune noise" to
many people.
I think Perl looks like "C plus moon noise" to former C programmers. I
imagine some people see it and think "Csh plus Awk noise". Perl is a lot
more than
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
We're talking about making a faster Perl. C's syntax requires enough
clarity to compile to something quick. it is a very short hop from
my dog $spot;
to
dog spot;
What about the second version would result in faster execution? Do
David Corbin wrote:
A C JIT is an interesting idea.
I think that a project works best when it has a set of goals (I haven't
seen one yet really for Perl 6). Unless this is one of the goals, I can
easily see how this could become a serious distraction to what I
perceive as the likely
20 matches
Mail list logo
