On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I committed a new multiarray.pmc, now based on list.c. It's not totally
finished yet (the clone codes needs some polishing to call the init_pmc
method) and needs a lot more tests.
But I hate failing tests ...
leo
Well done Leo you beat
On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e,
Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:36:12 +
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
X-SMTPD:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18139]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18139
Found yet another bug in sprintf: The code insists on prepending at
least one
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:26:00AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm currently leaning against it only because it doesn't ultimately help
the JIT. What we have now is wildly cool and damn useful (and has anyone
heard from Daniel lately, BTW?) but there's room for more
# New Ticket Created by Aldo Calpini
# Please include the string: [perl #18141]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18141
due to a bug in config/auto/stackdir.pl, Configure.pl
was unable to determine
Josef Hook wrote:
Well done Leo you beat me to it, :-) i got finished last weekend with my
version of marray with underlying list.
If I had known, that i will rewrite it, I'd dropped a note - sorry for
work duplication. But it took an hour or so and I thought, just commit
early so that
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #18142]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18142
Attached is a (big) patch that implements Parrot_destroy.
Test results with
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that we have to
worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
everything after position X (for some value of X)
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:26:00AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
But then you end up with a messier two level register spillage problem at
compile time, don't you?
Yes.
...Which values to spill from fast to slow registers,
and which values to spill further from slow
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18144]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18144
In order to do some debugging with PackFiles I had resurrected
pdump. It now uses
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18139]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18139
Thanks, applied
leo
Dan Wrote,
This came up a while back in regards to GCC. Someone was working on a
front (or back, I don't recall) end to gcc to dump out the internal
representation of source as XML for some damn thing or other.
I am working on something like that, there are 2-3 other similar
projects. I am
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Josh Wilmes wrote:
If patch [perl #18127] goes in, we can dodge this bullet a while longer :)
Agreed. But since we can't dodge it forever, this seemed as good a place
to try it as any. (Particularly if your patch goes in, then I can't
possibly break anything :-).
--
Jason Gloudon (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jason Gloudon
# Please include the string: [perl #18127]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18127
I have problems to understand the line below:
Andy Dougherty wrote:
but I'm unsure what to put for link_exe_out for each of the three
compilers mentioned in config/init/hints/mswin32.pl, nor for the
compilers used under OS/2 and VMS.
config/init/hints/mswin32.pl already defines what you need. is called
'ld_out' (also see my recent patch
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr +
PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT)
When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are skipped
during stack scanning by incrementing cur_var_ptr by sizeof(size_t) *
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jürgen Bömmels
# Please include the string: [perl #18144]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18144
Thanks, applied - with little modifications.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Aldo Calpini wrote:
Andy Dougherty wrote:
but I'm unsure what to put for link_exe_out for each of the three
compilers mentioned in config/init/hints/mswin32.pl, nor for the
compilers used under OS/2 and VMS.
config/init/hints/mswin32.pl already defines what you
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
appealing than
($a $b $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
Would it be practical/meaningful to say
$result = bitwise ($a $b $c) ^ ($d |
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Superpositions will turn out to be unimaginably handy, possibly used
in 10% or 15% of the code, so they get shorter names.
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of way, but
they are hardly basic in the
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied
At 11:22 AM -0600 10/29/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Can we really have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack?
the specs are available *somewhere*, and we should see
about digging them up and getting a final answer one way
or another.
A gold mine of cpu specs:
Matthew Zimmerman (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Matthew Zimmerman
# Please include the string: [perl #18131]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18131
Thanks applied + printing of fingerprint.
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr +
PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT)
When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are skipped
during stack scanning by incrementing cur_var_ptr by
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:40:14PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
+cur_var_ptr = (size_t)((ptrdiff_t)cur_var_ptr +
PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT)
When PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT is not 1, that much pointers -1 are
skipped
At 8:40 AM -0800 10/28/02, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 27 October 2002 23:27, Brent Dax wrote:
Appearances are deceiving--the first adds some (unparsed?) source code,
the second adds information on file and line numbers, probably based on
offset into the bytecode.
Similar in terms of
Jason Gloudon wrote:
ptrdiff_t is not a pointer type, so cur_var_ptr + PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT skips
exactly PARROT_PTR_ALIGNMENT bytes.
I did modify your patch slightly
- reversed directions (top-down is probably more common)
- increment by sizeof(void*)
This boost life.pasm gens from 270 -
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
... Can we really
have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack? I don't think so. Or am I still
missing something?
There was some indication back when this was first implemented that the
i386, at least when running windows, could
At 4:57 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0100 10/29/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
... Can we really
have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack? I don't think so. Or am I
still missing something?
There was some indication back when this was first implemented
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that
# we have to
# worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
# segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
# everything after position X (for some value of X) left up
Here's my proposal for stage one: This patch is intended to define
explicitly what the different compiler and linker commands and flags
are, what they are supposed to mean, and how they are to be used.
Does this set of variables look sufficient for everyone, and are the
definitions clear? If
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Here's my proposal for stage one: This patch is intended to define
explicitly what the different compiler and linker commands and flags
are, what they are supposed to mean, and how they are to be used.
Does this set of variables look sufficient
At 11:46 AM +0100 10/29/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that we have to
worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 11:48, Brent Dax wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Well, on thinking a bit about this, there's no reason that
# we have to
# worry--it's perfectly OK for us to declare, unconditionally, that
# segment 0 is always bytecode, 1 line number info, and so on, with
#
brian wheeler:
# Is this really necessary? Seems like a chicken-and-egg
# thing: to know which chuck the directory is in, you need to
# read the directory.
# However, since you've defined that the first chunk (0) is
# always the directory, there's really no need to have it in
# the
On Monday 28 October 2002 13:02, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:08 PM -0800 10/27/02, chromatic wrote:
Is there an underlying function used to add arbitrary (Unicode text)
metadata to the bytecode?
Arbitrary metadata? Nope, no plans for that. While I can see it as a
useful thing (though it
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 05:18:53AM -0800, James Michael DuPont wrote:
The gcc interface project has been offically restarted.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00806.html
Congratulations. I think it's an important project.
Tim.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Can we really have e.g. odd aligned PMCs on stack?
the specs are available *somewhere*, and we should see
about digging them up and getting a final answer one way
or another.
Larry wrote:
All other things being equal, I think people will find modal operators
more confusing than if we just make separate operators.
Agreed.
That being said, I'm still wondering whether we can finesse it.
We can get close. But that might actually be counterproductive.
Damian's
On 29/10/02 16:05 -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters:
Austin Hastings wrote:
I confess, I don't get it.
Yes, you did. :-)
To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay.
Okay then. That's all.
But does
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is they
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters: !super [0, 1, 2]
digits: !super
- 0
- 1
- 2
...
Not quite. You also need to
On 29/10/02 13:26 -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 16:05 -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Oh! I just remembered the ultimate word for a container. It's cozy, of
course!
Every eigenbunny needs a supercozy!
The plural of which is, presumable, supercozens.
Now *I'm* really scared!
;-)
Damian
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
:
: Is a good deal more intention revealing than the superficially
: appealing than
:
: ($a $b $c) ^ ( $d | $e | $f )
First I would like to
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry, I believe in the transactional model of QM,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
: Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
: basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
:
: Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with calling them
set operators.
--
For true believers, LORD would be K\textsc{nuth} in TeX, and
L\textsc{amport} in LaTeX. Atheists
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:simon;ermine.ox.ac.uk]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for
superposition.
Predicate calculus? :) Seriously, I see no problem with
calling them set operators.
Great minds think alike. Or in this case
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h+ or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling Warnock's on
At 10:02 AM -0800 10/29/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry,
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
How about christmasgift or gift?
You don't know what it is until
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:22:36AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.,
into the general vocabulary of the language. It attempts to make it
sound harder than it is, I think -- there are plenty of uses for these
operators
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
Oh boy, I just *hate* the idea of CX for xor.
Hate it, hate it, hate it! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
But I do like Michael's idea of using C as the hyperoperator marker
(the array connotation works well, I think). The only problem is that
we end up with too many C's in most expressions:
$count = a + b;
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
What kindergartener can't understand a
logically entangled list of nouns?
I want a tricycle or a video game or a teddy bear for Christmas.
I want a tricycle and a video game and a teddy bear for Christmas.
That's no
I think this may be in response to an earlier message of yours looking
for a replacement for superposition. But I recall getting a Dilbert
calendar for Xmas some years back with a cover featuring the PHB saying
I'm not indecisive - I'm flexible!
Thus, flexops. And flexpressions (flexprs, for
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the
operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
DC == Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC Oh boy, I just *hate* the idea of CX for xor.
DC Hate it, hate it, hate it! Yuck, yuck, yuck!
tell us how you _really_ feel! :-)
DC My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
DC array and indexing
Can we have a secret handshake, too? Will we be blamed for the secret
features of the new US dollar bill?
You know that eye-in-the-pyramid looking thingy? Well, notice what
character on the COMPUTER KEYBOARD that looks like? It's not by
coincidence that many of the programmers at the Treasury
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
would become?
It would be unchanged. Placeholders have nothing to do with hyperoperators.
And never have had.
Damian
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:36:20 -0800
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny slippers... (Though the trouble with those is they may or
may not be keeping your feet warm--you can
Uri Guttman wrote:
what is a string complement? bitwise? i take it the numeric is one's
complement.
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Integer complement treats the value as a int then bitwise complements every
bit.
DC
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Beats the heck out of thingy. I had to read that chapter three times
before I realized that Randal hadn't just forgotten the real word.
I still feel uncomfortable saying it
Simon Cozens wrote:
In this case I find the latter to be easier to decode and more
appealing. There are less chars and paretheses are seen much more
easily.
Ack, I guess that means we need a one character DWIM operator.
Although ... comes pretty close, I suppose.
Great minds think alike.
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
[i.e. this change doesn't make any difference]
Doh! You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking a long
while back that it would be confusing to have
{ $^a op $^b }
if ^ went back to meaning xor. But there's the
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:26:56AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
I'd call them ents if not for Austin Hastings' more sensible
flexops (unless someone wants to take a stab at
Scott Duff wrote:
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work on non-superimposed
values as well, in which cases it would just return a list containing
the value
Piers Cawley wrote:
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more
If someone (named Damian :-)
wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and varied uses of
superpositions in contexts that ordinary programmers can relate to, it
would bother me less when people make claims about the usefulness of
superpositions.
I'll take one of those for perl.com!
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:51:14AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Is that the complement of the codepoint or the individual bytes?
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
--
Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant
Brian Ingerson writes:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
How about christmasgift or
Larry...
would look favorably on finding a replacement for superposition.
any(
multivalue,
multival,
opval= andval|orval|xorval|nandval,
opval= andval|orval|exval|nonval,
opval= allval|anyval|oneval|noneval,
set = andset|orset|xorset|nandset,
set =
David Wheeler wrote:
Well, I like set operators, too, but what's the grammatical term for
the above logically entangled list of nouns?
Superposition.
Damian
On 10/29/02 3:13 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I suspect it will be quite unusual to see nested superpositions
in code. Most folks are going to be using them for simple but
very common checks like:
[...]
my $seen = $start | $finish;
for - $next {
print $next unless $next == $seen;
$seen |=
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 09:58 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
So I would look favorably on
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
I mean, will the following work?
$letters = any('a'..'z');
$digits = any('0'..'9');
$ndaTable = {
start = { $letters = 'OneLetter',
$digits = 'OneDigit' }
OneLetter = { $letters =
I confess, I don't get it. To me, it appears to iterate over the input,
printing unique values except that two values ($start, $finish) are
considered to have already been encountered.
If that's all, then okay. But does it somehow skip all entries
before/after the delimiter?
Also, in a related
Michael Lazzaro writes:
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
would become?
MikeL
maybe
{ $_a op $_b }
{ _ op _ }
and we have simple ( ? ) rules to distinguish it from space-eater _
* sp _ sp surrounded by spaces is placeholder if term is
Buddha Buck wrote:
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
As I mentioned in a recent post, would expect them to be all-pervasive
and fully propagating.
I mean, will the following work?
I would certainly hope so! (modulo the syntax snafu)
In fact,
Aaron Crane wrote:
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've merely
missed the answer). We've got two productive operation-formation rules: one
saying add a final = to operate-and-assign, and the other saying wrap in
[] to vectorise. But no-one's said which order they
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:50 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
PS: Is anyone collecting these examples. It would make writing that
perl.com
article much easier for me ;-)
But of course! Piers is summarizing this entire thread -- right,
Piers? :-)
Aaron Crane wrote:
x [+]= y;
I
On 30/10/02 08:36 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Brian Ingerson wrote:
Speaking of persistence, I just realized I'll need to start thinking about
YAML serializations of superpositions. My first cut at it would be:
---
letters: !super [0, 1, 2]
digits: !super
- 0
OK, perl6-language is getting scary again ;-) So here's something else
to think about. Code coverage.
We don't have to worry about how to do it here. That's a problem for
internals, and they seem to be solving it quite well without my
interference at the moment, even if they are not aware of
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:32 +
From: Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square
Interesting point, especially if operator:+= can be overloaded.
@a [+=] @b;
implies iteratively invoking operator:+=, whereas
@a [+]= @b;
implies assigning the result of iteratively invoking operator:+
It only matters when they're different. :-|
And, of course, if they ARE different then
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:19:59 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
So I would like to see able to tag arbitrary information onto just about
everything, including files, packages, classes, subroutines, blocks, control
structures, statements, lines, expressions, variables and whatever else I've
forgotten
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:x [+]= y;
:
: I guess that's OK looking, tho either is fine with me.
My only syntactic quibble with [+] is that it's officially ambiguous
when it's a unary operator:
a = [+]b
could also be the start of
a = [+1, +2, +3]
Or worse:
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
