Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the standard library, however large or small that will be, will
definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java you
can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't crap.
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Burr writes:
In theory you could write one as a perl6 macro, although it would be
more convenient if there was someway of obtaining the syntax tree of a
previously defined function other than quoting it (unless I've missed
that?).
There is a
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Burr writes:
But I confidently predict that no-one with write a useful
partial evaluator for perl6. The language is simply too big.
Then again, there are some very talented people with a lot of free
Piers Cawley writes:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the standard library, however large or small that will be, will
definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java you
can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't crap.
Great. But will it also be
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley writes:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the standard library, however large or small that will be, will
definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java you
can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
Of course having a no subclasses tag means the compiler can change a
method call into a direct subroutine call, but I would hope
On 13 Sep 2003, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
language.
Oh, I
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the standard library, however large or small that will be, will
definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java you
can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't crap.
Great.
[Recipients trimmed back to just the list, because it had gotten very
silly. When replying to someone who's on the list, there's no need to
copy them personally, too; they just end up with duplicates. :)]
On 2003-09-15 at 09:21:18, Piers Cawley wrote:
Great. But will it also be possible to add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
People get upset when CPAN authors add stuff to
On 15 Sep 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
Of course having a no subclasses tag means the compiler can
change a
method
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
People
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot, throwaway
optimizations make a lot of sense--we can build
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Burr writes:
In theory you could write one as a perl6 macro, although it would be
more convenient if there was someway of obtaining the syntax tree of a
previously defined function other than quoting it
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't entirely an easy task, however, since you can't throw away
or redo a function/method/sub/whatever that you're already in
somewhere in the call-chain, which means any optimizations will
have
Austin Hastings wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot,
throwaway optimizations make a lot of
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
regeneration. That's no big deal for code you haven't executed yet, but if
you
Nicholas Clark writes:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
regeneration. That's no big deal for code you haven't
At 3:30 PM -0600 9/15/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
The problem is we need to somehow un-optimize while we're running. That
is most likely a very very hard thing to do, so another solution is
probably needed.
It is, indeed, a very hard problem. It's solvable if you disallow
several classes of
At 5:07 PM -0500 9/15/03, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
The focus here, I think, is the following problem class:
sub twenty_five() { 25 }# Optimized to inline
sub foo() {
print twenty_five; # Inlined
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime?
Unless the class has been explicitly closed, yes.
That strikes me as back-to-front.
The easy-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case;
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 17:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The easy-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case; otherwise a lot
of optimisation that should be possible isn't because the programmers are
too inexperienced/lazy/confused to put the closed tags in.
The thinking at the last design
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030914
Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could there
be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
boiling them down into a
Piers Cawley:
# Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could
there
# be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
# through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
# boiling them down into a summary?
Happy birthday, Piers.
Poor guy, I just told him the same thing off-list. Well I come to think of
it,
I guess that makes me an old fogey too.
-Melvin
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/15/2003 11:39 AM
To: Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL
Because there are some assertions that can lead the optimizer to make some
fundamental assumptions, and if those assumptions get violated or
redefined while you're in the middle of executing a function that makes
use of those assumptions, well...
Changing a function from pure to impure,
27 matches
Mail list logo
