On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:26:49PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I'm pretty sure you meant single-quoted, and you perhaps might maybe
need a dot there:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:57:32AM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:26:49PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I'm pretty sure you meant single-quoted, and you perhaps might maybe
need a dot
Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley said:
in other words, some way of declaring that a subroutine wants to hang onto
every lexical it can see in its lexical stack, not matter what static
analysis
may say.
I'm not arguing with the idea, in general. I just want to point out
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
because of timely
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #36266]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36266
perldoc -ud packfile-c.pod ../src/packfile.c
Unknow option -d
leo
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:03:24PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
3) Chip is right, Piers is right. The two of you have are working from
a different base set of definitions/axioms or misunderstood each other
in some other way.
Historically, (pre Perl 6 actually) I think that this scenario was the
On 6/12/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
because of timely
I'm happy to announce Pugs 6.2.7, with much improved parser speed and
error reporting, as well as rudimentary (source filter style) macro
support:
http://pugscode.org/dist/Perl6-Pugs-6.2.7.tar.gz
SIZE = 1157780
SHA1 = fc8d80c05a5c896693e395f830d10e85a62f2747
Most of this release's
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:24:07AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
I just have to say that it's really annoying running into
optimizations when I don't want them.
Isn't the whole point of optimisations that you shouldn't have to worry
about whether you hit one or not, otherwise the optimisation
(Sorry. Wrong subject last time...)
I'm happy to announce Pugs 6.2.7, with much improved parser speed and
error reporting, as well as rudimentary (source filter style) macro
support:
http://pugscode.org/dist/Perl6-Pugs-6.2.7.tar.gz
SIZE = 1157780
SHA1 =
Hi,
Autrijus Tang autrijus at autrijus.org writes:
I'm happy to announce Pugs 6.2.7, with much improved parser speed and
error reporting, as well as rudimentary (source filter style) macro
support:
and, as usual, here's the Subversion revision graph, showing
the growth of the number
On 6/13/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:24:07AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
Back when I wrote an
back-chaining system in perl, I used tied variables in order to
determine when I needed to solve for something. A
...
Most of this release's development happened without my direct input,
since I was busily writing a talk and a paper about Pugs:
http://pugscode.org/talks/apw/slide1.html
interesting read, thank you a lot. But few questions however. A
following page:
, 13.06.2005, 09:23, Autrijus Tang :
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:18:38PM -0400, vadim wrote:
interesting read, thank you a lot. But few questions however. A
following page:
http://pugscode.org/talks/apw/slide14b.html#end
states that Faster: JIT compiled; run in embedded machines
Is
That statement talks about Parrot. As soon as Pugs targets Parrot --
which is what I'm working on right now -- you can run cross-compiled
Perl 6 program s on PocketPC.
Question: Given that Parrot isn't complete, will there be a time where
certain Pugs features are available when targeting
Hi,
# No problem:
my $data = BEGIN {
my $fh = open some_file err...;
=$fh;
};
# Problem;
my $fh = BEGIN { open some_file err... };
# Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
say =$fh;
In Perl 5, this wasn't a problem, as compilation and execution happended
(most of the
Hi,
just checking: Are anonymous macros allowed?
my $macro = macro ($x) { 100$x };
say $macro(3); # 1003
Of course, anonymous macros can't be called at compile-time, like normal
macros:
my $macro = rand 0.5
?? macro ($x) { 100$x }
:: macro ($x) { 200$x };
say $macro(3); # 1003
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:32:05AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
That statement talks about Parrot. As soon as Pugs targets Parrot --
which is what I'm working on right now -- you can run cross-compiled
Perl 6 program s on PocketPC.
Question: Given that Parrot isn't complete, will there be a
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:41:05PM -0700, Bill Coffman wrote:
Continuations can be taken from within any sub, and possibly even
when appending to a list, if you're using lazy list eval.
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied variables.
Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tied
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a continuation. And I only need two
words to prove it:
Tied
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:37:52AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:21:00AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh no ... it's even worse than you think. Almost *any* opcode that
operates on a PMC can trigger a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:52:35PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Isn't this *exactly* why Perl 6 is requiring you to mark tied
variables when they're declared?
Yes.
Um:
my $x is tied;
tied $x, SomePackage;
unsuspecting_victim(\$x); # ???
Hmm, you can't say is tied;
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #36269]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36269
As discussed in
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/29984
a
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened, so I
can't suggest a patch.
It happends directly in the PMC
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't follow where that happened,
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the UnionVal in the PMC
ends up unaligned. However, I couldn't
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized
pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no
union or compiler bug involved.
But PMC-sized is defined in terms of the C sizeof operator,
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
# No problem:
my $data = BEGIN {
my $fh = open some_file err...;
=$fh;
};
# Problem;
my $fh = BEGIN { open some_file err... };
# Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
say =$fh;
Perhaps I'm being
Hi,
chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:07 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
# No problem:
my $data = BEGIN {
my $fh = open some_file err...;
=$fh;
};
# Problem;
my $fh = BEGIN { open some_file err... };
# Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
say
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:48:47AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
# Problem;
my $fh = BEGIN { open some_file err... };
# Compile-time filehandle leaked into runtime!
say =$fh;
Perhaps I'm being very naive, but why is this a problem? Maybe it's not
the best way to do something, but I
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:25:59PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: just checking: Are anonymous macros allowed?
I have no problem with macros being first-class objects during
the compile. Though the macro itself may have a problem with your
passing it '3' when it is likely expecting an AST.
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized
pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no
union or compiler bug involved.
But PMC-sized is defined in terms of
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:12:48PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
... On SPARC, doubles should be aligned on 8-bit boundaries.
The speculation is that the _num_val part of the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC allocation area is a big bunch of memory, where PMC-sized
pieces are carved out by the memory allocation system. There is no
union
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Chip Salzenberg via RT wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:38:30PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:29:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The PMC
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports
that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC.
Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever misalign a double.
Yes. So I am. Could somone please run this
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put
forward as a patch. I can see 3 key areas of concern:
1. Framework for unwritten Synopses (so we know what goes where)
2. Heading placeholders for written
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
Yes. The compiler does the right thing. It sensibly reports
that sizeof(PMC) = 24 for SPARC.
Then I remain puzzled how Parrot could ever
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I have included a sample framework for chapter 17. Theoretically,
someone could then go search the archives for decision points in any
of those headings and
I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on
use.perl.org:
http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182
I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if
only because it will point you to AN UPDATED PDD. Really.
--
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey,
Found out this morning that wizard.p6 suddenly stopped wondering and I was
stumped as to why. The autrijus came along and pointed out that i was
defineing an Object class of my own. This was obliterating the built in
class causing all other classes to fail to work at all. It would seem
You shouldn't be able to reopen/clobber an existing class/module unless
you specify
class Object is augmented {...}
class Object is replaced {...}
or some such (the trait names are still negotiable). In general,
private classes should start with my or our, though I don't know
if Pugs
On 6/13/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've posted a report on the Hackathon Days 2+3 as a journal entry on
use.perl.org http://use.perl.org:
http://use.perl.org/~chip/journal/25182
I'm not going to copy it here, but you probably want to read it, if
only because it will
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:04:54 +0200
. . . you probably want to read it, if only because it will point you
to AN UPDATED PDD. Really.
Great! Pardon the typing; it's hard when my head is spinning . . .
FWIW, there is one thing that jumps
46 matches
Mail list logo
