On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:12:01PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
helps people think about the issues. However, I would like it to be
possible for a programmer of language Foobar to take the specification of
the data structures and implement them directly in Foobar without too much
trouble.
No, there isn't. I object to targetting GCC specifically for two reasons,
though, neither of them VMS related:
1) Targeting a single compiler, no matter whose it is, is a bad idea. We're
writing in a *language*, not for a compiler. Targeting a specific compiler
restricts us even more
Simon Cozens writes:
This is not a design document; it's a meta-design document - that is, it
tells us what things we need to design, the things we need to consider
during the design process of the Perl 6 internals.
Thank you!
Why does string Ceval have to screw everything up?
It doesn't.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:31:07AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Simon Cozens writes:
Why does string Ceval have to screw everything up?
It doesn't. String eval is the escape hatch from a language that
can't do what you want it to do. As such it's okay for it to be
slow--consider it
At 08:31 AM 12/6/00 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Simon Cozens writes:
Today's scary thought:
use B; my $main_root = new B::OP;
...
my $int = new B::Interpreter; $int-run($main_root)
That's yesterday's scary thought. Today's scary thought is making
a perl5 XS wrapper for
At 06:47 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Evan Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a hybrid approach would solve all the language needs. Retain
reference counting. When the count drops to zero, call the destructor and
mark the object. Free marked objects when sweep runs. To reclaim circular
references, the sweep task may
Simon Cozens wrote:
=head2 Implementation Language
C++ gives us OO and headaches, is wildly non-portable due to a lack of
decent implementations, and we don't have enough experience of it. C's
portable and everyone knows it, but it's a swine for doing OO things.
Don't forget we can
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:48:45AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
(Is maintaining such a document an "apprentice" job? (see perl6-meta))
I'd certainly like someone to take on the maintainance of the document I
posted last night, because I hope that one of its functions will be to explain
to
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:31:07AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Today's scary thought:
use B; my $main_root = new B::OP;
...
my $int = new B::Interpreter; $int-run($main_root)
That's yesterday's scary thought. Today's scary thought is making
a perl5 XS wrapper for
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
@array-length
%hash-keys
Simply keeping @arrays and %hashes as buckets for SV's wouldn't let you
do this.
I don't think that's true. At all.
An "SV" would really just
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Don't forget we can mix-and-match C/C++ to some degree
for added portability!
--
If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what
computer systems do and draw well-reasoned conclusions from it, instead of
At 02:39 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
In http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals@perl.org/msg01766.html,
Dan outlined rev 2 of the RFC process, PDD (Perl Design Docs).
Everything seems rather specific to internals - will there be a separate
mechanism in place for all-things
At 07:55 PM 12/6/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:51:14AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
@array-length
%hash-keys
Simply keeping @arrays and %hashes as buckets for SV's wouldn't let you
do this.
I don't think
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
What I'm thinking is that we'll have a scoped destruct stack that gets
pointers to variables that explicitly need destruction, and as we exit
levels of scope we call the destructors of those variables that need it.
(They can still be GC'd later to pick
At 03:14 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
What I'm thinking is that we'll have a scoped destruct stack that gets
pointers to variables that explicitly need destruction, and as we exit
levels of scope we call the destructors of those variables that
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
my $new_dog;
{
my $dog = new Dog;
$new_dog = \$dog;
}
That would hoist the Dog reference into an outer level of scope--in this
case the one containing $new_dog. Or so my thinking goes at the moment,
though there may be
Simon Cozens wrote:
Oh boy, it's OO syntax nargery time again. *sigh*.
I think it would be cool
Good for you. This is internals design; perl6-language is over there ---
and the "ph33r mY |ewl dr3am 5inta" phase is supposed to be over now
anyway.
Cool! Thanks alot for the useful
At 03:38 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
my $new_dog;
{
my $dog = new Dog;
$new_dog = \$dog;
}
That would hoist the Dog reference into an outer level of scope--in this
case the one containing $new_dog. Or so my
At 03:54 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Non-refcounting GC schemes are more expensive when they collect, but less
expensive otherwise, and it apparently is a win for the non-refcount
schemes.
Which is why GC is intimately tied to DESTROY
At 03:54 PM 12-06-2000 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Non-refcounting GC schemes are more expensive when they collect, but less
expensive otherwise, and it apparently is a win for the non-refcount
schemes.
Which is why GC is intimately tied to DESTROY
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Sure, but only objects. (or, to be really paranoid, things referred to)
Nothing else needs refcounting. All the refcounting code can be isolated in
the reference creation and deletion code, and we don't have to pay it
otherwise.
Good point. I hadn't
In http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals@perl.org/msg01766.html,
Dan outlined rev 2 of the RFC process, PDD (Perl Design Docs).
Everything seems rather specific to internals - will there be a separate
mechanism in place for all-things non-internal, say, for instance, the format
for a
Bennett Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My own personal favourite for archival format would be to stick with POD
until and unless we can cons up something even Plainer than POD. I've
got this dream that someday we'll be able to take something --- perhaps
based on Damian's Text::Autoformat ---
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More importantly, what we're doing is outside Java's area of competence.
We're writing system-level code here. Java isn't a system-level programming
language. This isn't a bad thing, but it means it's an inappropriate
solution to the problem. We
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[vtable stuff snipped]
I don't think it's too early to be dealing with the way variables are
implemented, at least at some level.
I agree; I didn't mean for it to sound like I was saying otherwise.
Also, just because we do vtables under the hood
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 things the above reminds me to watch out for
int32 toInt32()
don't assume anything about integer sizes (or any machine native type sizes
or precisions, or that floating point can (or can't) preserve integers)
Why does string Ceval have to screw everything up?
Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't. String eval is the escape hatch from a language that can't do
what you want it to do. As such it's okay for it to be slow--consider it
incentive to fix the language :-) The runtime
At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
but we should remember that `require' is built on `eval STRING'.
I see no reason to ghettoize powerful
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:30:06PM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
At 07:49 AM 12/6/00 -0800, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
Simply deciding that `eval STRING' is "unimplemented" on these
theoretical ports and binary compiles is the best idea I've heard yet,
but we should remember that `require' is
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
And, it will make the barrier for entry for new internals hacker lower.
Really? Do you honestly believe there are more Java programmers than C
programmers? Particularily in the Perl development community!
I would note that if we write in Java, we
Decisions of GC models rapidly become religious arguments.
The most important argument is: Does a particular
GC model meet the Perl 6 language requirements?
Reference counting fulfills the language requirement
for deterministic destructor calls. (Those
destructors might be freeing
This example shows that you can offend all
"religious" camps and still capitalize on their
disparate arguments.
Sounds like keeping the holidays of all the religions and but none of
the penances. I like it :-)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist
32 matches
Mail list logo
