Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9 Nov 2002 at 18:56, Andrew Wilson wrote:
Starting small sounds like a good idea. I'm not so sure about trying to
lock things down before moving on. I don't think that will be
possible in any meaningful way. The problem with trying to lock things
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:15:23PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
wrote on Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:50:34 -0800:
and the ability to turn syntax inferencing on a per-document basis.
On the Pod-people list, we have mostly decided that those inference rules
are more trouble than they are worth,
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021110
Far off in distant Newark a figure, muttering something about `Leon
Brocard', shambles across a railway bridge and makes its way into a
waiting room. Time passes. After a while, a train arrives and the figure
shambles on board, takes
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 07:15:23PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
That's vaguely like the verbatim-formatted stuff that I've been
experimenting with lately, where the second line here:
flock COUNTER, LOCK_EX;
#: ^^^
bolds the characters above the ^.
I'd like to see an
I could localize a long outstanding bug in JIT causing 4 perl6 tests to
fail.
When an opcode was a branch target as well as a branch source, the
branch target got lost, causing wrong basic blocks, implying missing
register loads ...
All perl6 tests are now ok on JIT too.
leo
If memory serves me right, Markus Laire wrote:
Miniparrot can then be used to build everything else, including full
parrot, perl6, other parrot-supported languaged, etc..
This 2nd step might be e.g. Bytecode-compiled perl6-program which is
simple enough to work with miniparrot.
Please for
Me writes:
Sorta. To quote an excellent summary:
Topic is $_.
is $_ always lexical variable.
Yes.
Or I can have $MyPackage::_ ?
You can copy or alias any value.
so if I understand correctly ,
Every topicalizer defines a topicalizer scope in
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 08:06, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I could localize a long outstanding bug in JIT causing 4 perl6 tests to
fail.
When an opcode was a branch target as well as a branch source, the
branch target got lost, causing wrong basic blocks, implying missing
register loads ...
Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 08:06, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I could localize a long outstanding bug in JIT causing 4 perl6 tests to
fail.
I wonder who was the #%$# that introduced that bug . D'OH! :)
Wow, Daniel, the lost son himself ;-)
So I immediately have a
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:11:36 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
I still prefer cached, which sounds less lingo-ish than memoized
but reads better than same (Same as what?).
Insert
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:30:24 +, Peter Haworth wrote:
So to get the same yield context, each call to the coroutine has to be from
the same calling frame. If you want to get several values from the same
coroutine, but from different calling contexts, can you avoid the need to
wrap it in a
Timothy S. Nelson writes:
Hi all. I hope this hasn't been discussed before. I Googled for
perl6 meta-operators and found nothing; likewise practically
nothing searching the perl6-language archive for meta-operators.
Question: are there any plans to have user-defined
Piers Cawley writes:
FMTWYENTK about :=
Bravely declining to expand the acronym in his subject, arcardi posted a
summary of his current understanding of the behavior of :=, the
its far more then what you ever need to know
and after Damian Conway answer it becomes JEOWYNTK -
Gopal V:
# If memory serves me right, Markus Laire wrote:
# Miniparrot can then be used to build everything else, including full
# parrot, perl6, other parrot-supported languaged, etc..
#
# This 2nd step might be e.g. Bytecode-compiled perl6-program which is
# simple enough to work with
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 11:48, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 08:06, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I could localize a long outstanding bug in JIT causing 4 perl6 tests to
fail.
I wonder who was the #%$# that introduced that bug . D'OH!
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 08:51:50PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: You will. But they won't be entries of a hash. They'll be
: separate variables and associated accessor methods.
: So maybe something like this:
:
: foreach my $attr (qw(foo bar baz))
: {
:print $attr:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Or number the sections like this:
=section # blah
=section ## subblah
=section ### subsubblah
=section ## subblah2
=section # blah2
And let the author only worry about sectioning and not about
numbering at all.
I like that decently. Obviously, making authors
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:49:57PM -0700, Sean M. Burke wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:40:05 -0800:
: could certainly talk about improvements. As for per-document policy,
: there should certainly be some kind of
:
: =use module
:
: directive that, like Perl's Cuse, is
Hi,
Many thanks for all the feedback about the literals document.
This new version integrates most of the changes. I've also added a
subsection about Inf and NaN, directly coming from Michael's
perlval.
I've also changed the pod syntax to =section, as suggested. I've used
the:
=section **
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
equivalent ways:
my $x = 16:1D
my $x = 16:1.14
These two representations are incompatible, so writing something like
C16:D.13 will generate a
Since we're having trouble finding a common voice, let's drill into one
particular aspect of Section 1: Numerics, since that's what we've been
talking about (and we have Angel's text to work from.)
Forget the rest of Section 1, let's just do this one small fragment.
There are a number of
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example:
my $x = 18;
my $y = -18;
my $z = -256:234.254; # negative number
my $e = 256:-234.254; # error
Perl allows the underline character, C_, to be placed as a separator
between the
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:38:08PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
equivalent ways:
my $x = 16:1D
my $x = 16:1.14
These two representations are
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:01:26 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- converting numbers to strings
- writing a number as a string
(what the rules are for how it will look)
- writing a number as a formatted
Looks good.
I'll rewrite the literals section to match this better outline.
-angel
You will see it running as fast as mops.c compiled with -O3 if you change
REDO: sub I4, I4, I3
for
REDO: dec I4
But that's obviously part of a higher level optimizer.
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 15:10, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Watch the mops ;-)
leo
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:08:08AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
On 12 Nov 2002 at 16:40, Marius Nita wrote:
Hello,
I have a question about the Parrot FAQ. I hope it's not too
off-topic for this list. The FAQ mentions that it would be nice to
write the Perl to Bytecode compiler in Perl
Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
You will see it running as fast as mops.c compiled with -O3 if you change
REDO: sub I4, I4, I3
for
REDO: dec I4
I didn't want to change the test case ;-)
But that's obviously part of a higher level optimizer.
Yes, with constant propagation the (todo) optimizer
At 5:16 PM +0530 11/13/02, Gopal V wrote:
If memory serves me right, Markus Laire wrote:
Miniparrot can then be used to build everything else, including full
parrot, perl6, other parrot-supported languaged, etc..
This 2nd step might be e.g. Bytecode-compiled perl6-program which is
simple
I'm about to do exceptions, and as such I wanted to give a quick
warning to everyone who does Odd Things. (Which would be in the JIT,
mainly :)
Because of the way exceptions are going to work, we need to make sure
that the code emitted for each individual opcode is self-contained,
relative to
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:48:06PM -0600, Me wrote:
: Are placeholders only usable with anonymous
: subs, or named subs too?
Placeholders are not intended for use with named subs, since named
subs have a way of naming their parameters in a more readable fashion.
However, it may well fall out that
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:11:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: so if I understand correctly ,
:
: Every topicalizer defines a topicalizer scope in which there is
: implicit declaration
:
: my $_ ;
:
: and then lexical $_ ( implicitely ) is bound to ( or assigned to )
: whatever it
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:35:00PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: What you want are conversion-to-(num|str|bool) methods:
:
: sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
: class is Num {
: has Num $cache;
: sub value { $n * $n }
: method
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: Hang on, couldn't you rewrite things to not use the cache?
:
: class is $class {
: sub value { func(*args) }
: method operator:+ ($self is rw:) { +($self = value) }
: method operator:~ ($self is rw:) { ~($self =
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
If so, what is perl going to do about the computationally expensive
entanglement thingy?
$x =
Apologies for raising the dead (horse)
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:27:51PM -0600, Me wrote:
Damian:
[it will be passed to about 5% of subs,
regardless of whether the context is your
10 line scripts or my large modules]
If the syntax for passing it to a sub
remains as verbose as it
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:34:49 +
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:10:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:38:08PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
equivalent ways:
my $x =
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:53:05PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:10:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:38:08PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be
except for obfuscatory purposes. Besides, if we allow dots for
floating point numbers how do we represent this integer:
256:234.254
Using this notation is cute: a generalization that lets us specify a strange
thing. That are the reasons for using such a thing?
1) an alternative to Cpack
2)
: 1_2_3_4__5___6 (absurd, but doable)
Nope, _ is allowed only between digits (counting a-f as digits in hex).
Larry
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:33:09PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: 1_2_3_4__5___6 (absurd, but doable)
Nope, _ is allowed only between digits (counting a-f as digits in hex).
Ah, good. It has always mildly annoyed me in prior perls that 1__2
was a literal 12.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:38:08PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
equivalent ways:
my $x = 16:1D
my $x = 16:1.14
These two
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:00:07PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:33:09PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: 1_2_3_4__5___6 (absurd, but doable)
Nope, _ is allowed only between digits (counting a-f as digits in hex).
Ah, good. It has always mildly annoyed
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:06:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The goal is for Parrot to require a C compiler and a platform shell
or Make tool (either one) and that's it. We will ship with bytecode
files that have the bits needed for the build precompiled, so if the
perl compiler's
At 20:47 on 11/13/2002 GMT, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:06:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The goal is for Parrot to require a C compiler and a platform shell
or Make tool (either one) and that's it. We will ship with bytecode
files that have the
Luke wrote:
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
[...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
Supercomma!
[snip]
Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
parallel for loops from:
for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
to something like:
for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
Luke wrote:
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
want from junctions?
Perhaps the above should just print JUNCTION(0x1234)
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to be a supercomma in these
situations, does that mean that we C addicts can have Cfor back to do
the kinds of loops that we mean when we say for loops?
I hope not.
I really don't much like the Cloop keyword.
for
access caller's topic is an unrestricted
licence to commit action at a distance.
Right.
Perhaps:
o There's a property that controls what subs
can do with a lexical variable. I'll call
it Yours.
o By default, in the main package, topics are
set to Yours(rw); other lexicals are set
At 09:43 2002-11-13 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
I thought about putting something of the sort into perldpodspec and
Pod::Simple, but didn't see a particularly clean way to have it so that
1) you wouldn't have to depend on a particular Pod-parsing module, and
which 2) could work in cases where the
Larry Wall writes:
Correct, $_ is always lexical. But...
: or * will it be implicitely my $_ -- class/package lexical
There's no such thing as a class/package lexical. I think you
mean file-scoped lexical here.
ooo, now I understand : *scope* is orthogonal concept to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:34:49PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
It's the difference
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:28:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: : will it be an error to declare it as our $_ ;
:
: No, in this case, $_ is still considered a lexical, but it just happens
: to be aliased to a variable in the current package.
:
:
: which variable ? it seems
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Deborah Ariel Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:05:16 +1100 (EST)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Luke wrote:
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in
Luke Palmer:
# sub foo($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print Not four\n;
# }
# if ($x == 4) {
# print Four\n;
# }
# }
# sub oof($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print Not four\n;
# }
# else {
# print
[examples of how to create the glossary links snipped]
Assuming that we do go with the maintain a unique list of keys in %glossary, then do
an s/// approach, I'd be willing to maintain the list of terms.
--Dks
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I wonder if it'd be feasible to do lists something like:
[...]
=* level1
= level2
=+ level3
=* level4
= level3
= level1
I personally like the idea of keeping the '=' required, to be
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Or if the leading = really must be required:
=* level1
= level2
=+ level3
=* level4
= level3
= level1
What
60 matches
Mail list logo
