The following patch fixes the following bugs with macros:
1) Macros with zero parameters were disallowed
2) Local branches inside macros were not being given unique names on a
per-invocation basis. This made it impossible to write the following
code:
--- cut here ---
answer macro R
eq
Erps, macro.t had a slight bug. The included version of macro.t fixes it.
--Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#! perl -w
use Parrot::Test tests = 7;
output_is( 'CODE', OUTPUT, macro, zero parameters );
answer macro
print 42
print \n
endm
answer
end
CODE
42
OUTPUT
string.pasm patches the operators mentioned
The other file, 'parrot.pasm', is a miniature Parrot compiler, written
in Parrot.
The patches in the string.diff file are required to make this work.
It's currently -very- limited, due to some issues that I found with
macro processing and some problems
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Jeff wrote:
string.pasm patches the operators mentioned
The other file, 'parrot.pasm', is a miniature Parrot compiler, written
in Parrot.
The patches in the string.diff file are required to make this work.
ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
(but not quite enough...)
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Jeff wrote:
string.pasm patches the operators mentioned
The other file, 'parrot.pasm', is a miniature Parrot compiler, written
in Parrot.
The patches in the string.diff file are required to make
Hi Brent,
It just means you have to be more explicit. I consider that a Good
Thing--Perl 5's regular expressions are compact enough to be represented
like: but the internals to support them are an absolute jungle. I'd rather
have a few exposed ops than have a chunk of code like Perl 5's
At 01:39 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# At 12:39 AM 11/9/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
# 3. We've adopted a register machine architecture to
# reduce push/pop stack traffic. Register save/load
# traffic is similar, but not nearly as bad.
#
# Do we want to further
At 07:13 PM 11/8/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[native code regexps] There's a hugely good case for JITting.
Yes, for JITing the regexp engine. That looks like a much easier
problem to solve than JITing all of Parrot.
The problem there's no different than for the rest of the
