At 7:45 PM -0400 6/13/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
I do not like the fact that we have to use keyed access at a low level
to accomplish this, so I hope we consider adding random access
to stacks.
It's on the list--it's just never gotten implemented. Time to fix
that, I think. We've added (or are
What do you all think about adding a matrix class.
It would be really usefull to have it as a class..
Pseudo code:
new P0, Matrix, 3, 3
set P0, 0, 0, 1
set P0, 0, 1, 3
set P0, 0, 2, 1
set P0, 1, 0, 2
set P0, 1, 1, 2
set P0, 1, 2, 2
What do you all think about adding a matrix class.
It would be really usefull to have it as a class..
It's excellent!
It would be really usefull to have builtin vector operations like
transpose eigevects etc...
I think lately about it.
I like multivariate analysis.
But I cannot
hello there,
in one of my endless tours inside the JIT world, I came up with this idea
which seems to give a major speed increase.
basically, I'm substituting the Parrot method for subroutines (push the
current address in the call stack and then jump) with a plain native
x86 ASM call
At 8:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, =?latin1?Q?Josef_H=F6=F6k?= wrote:
What do you all think about adding a matrix class.
It would be really usefull to have it as a class..
[Snip]
A third option maybe (if its possible) would be to actually adding above
syntax to the assembler but that would probably look
At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
you would
not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot
program anymore.
That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to
do this in the general case. Also, we'll fill up the thread stack
pretty
Brent Dax asked:
Will that handle captures correctly?
I believe so. Each (successful) time through the loop we cache
a reference to the candidate's match object, which will successfully
have stored all the captures from the candidate's matching.
Then we reinstate the best candidate, by
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 9:54 AM +0200 6/14/02, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: you would
: not be able, for example, to inspect the call stack from inside a Parrot
: program anymore.
:
: That, unfortunately, makes it untenable, since we need to be able to
: do this in the general
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: But surely an routine that calls another routine can potentially have its
: stack inspected by the caller?
Certainly.
: So it would only make sense for leaf nodes, and even then they might
: get inspected by overloaded values or methods on objects
At 1:49 PM -0700 6/14/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: Or would the property of I don't use caller or want still be useful on a
: subroutine, because the run-time could determine that it would be
: inline-able (or whatever) inside a loop at run time, based on
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:48:25PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
But the most straightforward way to match longest is probably to use
:any to get a superposition of matches, and then pull out the longest
match.
So, does :any return a list of the substrings that matched or a list
of match
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:48:25PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: But the most straightforward way to match longest is probably to use
: :any to get a superposition of matches, and then pull out the longest
: match.
:
: So, does :any return a
12 matches
Mail list logo
