On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:20:21 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
2. Add shift/unshift/push/pop methods to ResizablePMCArray
(or one of its superclasses) in Parrot
This is my preference. It feels like a role.
This is my preference as
From: Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:53:25 -0500
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:20:21 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
2. Add shift/unshift/push/pop methods to ResizablePMCArray
(or one of
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Bob Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:53:25 -0500
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:20:21 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
2.
On Monday 31 March 2008 20:33:42 Bob Rogers wrote:
Do you remember the discussion two years ago [1] about eliminating the
user stack in favor of arrays? Chip made the following comment [2]:
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: User stack: Worthwhile?
Date:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:33:42PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
Do you remember the discussion two years ago [1] about eliminating the
user stack in favor of arrays? Chip made the following comment [2]:
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: User stack: Worthwhile?
On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:20:21 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Actually, it can be done without subclassing via the following
.namespace [ 'ResizablePMCArray' ]
.sub 'unshift' :method
.param pmc list
.param pmc value
unshift list, value
.end
.sub 'shift' :method
.param
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Attached is a patch implementing:
* ++ and -- postfix operators, implemented as n_sub and n_add (taking
1 as the 3rd operand), this is because each instruction must have an
output register as far as I can tell (so inc/dec won't
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 07:41:25AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Ideally += should be implemented as the two-argument 'add' opcode
in PIR... something like
add %0, %1
But the PAST compiler doesn't yet have a great way for distinguishing
a 2-argument add from a 3-argument add. We
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:16AM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Attached is a patch implementing:
* ++ and -- postfix operators, implemented as n_sub and n_add (taking
1 as the 3rd operand), this is because
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:28PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It really needs to be inc/dec. And not only that, but the output
value of postfix ++ and -- needs to be the value _before_ the
inc/dec operation.
thanks for the clarifications;
attached an updated patch including some tests.
I left out += and friends for now.
kjs
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:28PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:41
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:35:42PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
attached an updated patch including some tests.
Patch applied in r26597. I made a few modifications before
applying:
- Updated the precedence of postfix:++ and postfix:-- to match
- Fixed the relational ops to use e.g.,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
stage for
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
* list ops ( I think this is meant by list ops? )
All languages that have some
hi,
having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
stage for Perl 6,or is it a tool for now and will it be discarded
later on.
Anyway, if NQP is to stay, the following features would come in handy,
IMHO. I
From the point of view of someone working through the PCT tutorial
(quite rockin', BTW!):
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:25 +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
stage for
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
stage for Perl 6,or is it a tool for now and will it be discarded
later on.
Neither! It's
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:12:18AM -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
Being able to write
unshift @?BLOCK, $?BLOCK;
would be useful, as it prevents the need for creating the List class
over and over again.
I feel that these ops are so basic, it would be well worth it to have
them
19 matches
Mail list logo
