At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this has gotten to be an issue...
Making a continuation conceptually has three steps. One must:
1) Copy the current environment contents to the continuation
2) Note the bytecode address at which
)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:33 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:00 PM +0100 3/22/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
D'oh! (I should edit this all out but, well...) If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack
At 12:59 AM + 3/23/04, Piers Cawley wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... If we go with a one
frame stack chunk then we don't have to bother with COW-ing
*anything* with the stack.
BTW: which stacks: Register frames of course. What
that.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
attribution, however, is the minimum requirement)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 5:34 PM +0100 3/18/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fix up another dependency issue
-library/config.fpmc: myconfig config_lib.pasm
+library/config.fpmc: myconfig config_lib.pasm $(TEST_PROG)
Actually I deleted $(TEST_PROG) from dependencies a day ago
that.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:38 PM +0100 3/18/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 4:10 PM -0500 3/18/04, Mitchell N Charity wrote:
It seemed nontrivial to reduce the number return continuation pmc's
used in oofib.imc. So I instead added an _extra_, unused one, to the
two already used
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of the class ParrotClass.
Anyone got a good reason to not put off the decision for a while? :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 4:12 PM -0800 3/16/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:57:07PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Classes and roles don't automatically share the same namespace.
I think they do. I want to be able to tell the moment I compile it
whether Foo is a class or a role or (a bareword
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the potential massive memory usage. So, by all means, have at it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 5:31 PM + 3/17/04, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
This seems... too simple, so I'm sure I'm missing something besides
the potential massive memory usage. So, by all means, have at it.
You'll need to worry about actions that invalidate all or part
At 6:46 PM +0100 3/17/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, as I see it there are two big things that we can do to speed
objects up. (Well, besides speeding up the creation of continuation
PMCs, which I am, at the moment, sorely tempted to put in a special
pool
not been in the bytecode
segment stuff in a very long time. I'll try and get a simple test
case, since my working code's about 77K of machine-generated PIR.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
...)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:24 AM +0100 3/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... --should we have the
base object system participate in multimethod dispatch? That is, if
someone does an:
add P1, P2, P3
and P2 is a parrot object, should that add vtable method
automatically
reason not to, and quite a number of reasons to do so.
People can cope, if they're looking this deeply.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:14 AM -0800 3/16/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 06:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Roles are going to get implemented as inheritance--so far I've seen
no technical reason not to, and quite a number of reasons to do so.
People can cope, if they're looking this deeply.
Out of curiosity
At 11:05 AM -0800 3/16/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 10:25, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Unless I missed something, child classes inherit parent class roles,
so if I have Foo with a role of X, and Bar inherits from Foo, Bar
does the X role. Looks like inheritance to me...
That's normal
At 11:51 AM -0800 3/16/04, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 11:46, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A class does X if X is on the does list of the class or any of the
parents of the class. This class then does the role X.
A class isa X if X in on the isa list of the class or any of the
parents
like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:06 PM +0100 3/13/04, Oli wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
As well as involving much finding of instances, and moving of
their attribute
values, this isn't thread safe (please excuse my lack of PASM syntax
knowledge):
Yeah, adding an attribute requires a stop-the-world action, as
every object
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
, perfectly valid for us to automatically
generate the LOAD sub and just have it make calls into all subs
marked LOAD in the compilation unit, though I'd rather not do that)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Calling a method:
object.variable(pararms)
Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.meth_call PObj, (meth | PMeth ) [, PReturnContinuation ]
.result r
.pcc_end
Sure. Or we could
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
,
Matt
leo
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 9:57 AM -0800 3/12/04, Steve Fink wrote:
On Mar-12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:49 AM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Calling a method:
object.variable(pararms)
Do we need the more explicit pcc_call syntax too:
.pcc_begin
.arg x
.meth_call PObj
class needs to be modified. That's a
non-trivial activity.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 8:34 PM +0100 3/12/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... (Though arguably
anything you make a method call on really is an object :)
or a class.
Well... only because classes are objects. Or objects are classes.
Possibly both, this OO stuff confuses me sometimes
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
more
or less asking a Recap the last 30 years of OO theory for Dummies
question, but I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with things to ask a
better one)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 2:15 PM +0100 3/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a method:
object.variable(pararms)
object.literal name(params)
Done.
Woohoo!
--
Dan
--it's like
At 2:14 PM +0100 3/11/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we still need to nail down the final bits of namespace stuff,
I'm running into the need for it in IMCC code, so its time to finally
deal with it.
I don't really care what the syntax looks like, so I'm
Okay, unless there are objections I'm going to rejig the date
decoding logic to return months from 1-12, rather than 0-11. We
already fix years, so it seems to make sense.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
be a crossing in the CVS.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 10:50 AM -0500 3/11/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
(YAY!)
Heh. And done, too. May cause issue with legacy code, but the
libraries for the various languages can hide the correct behaviour
with historically accurate incorrect behaviour. :)
-Original Message-
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto
At 5:07 PM +0100 3/11/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 11 March 2004 16:41, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:34 PM +0100 3/11/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
Hi,
attached is a patch to t/pmc/object-meths.t that adds a test that is
currently failing because IMCC rejects code like self.blah()
Before I
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:00 PM +0100 3/9/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While we still need to nail down the final bits of namespace stuff,
I'm running into the need for it in IMCC code, so its time to finally
deal with it.
I don't really care what the syntax looks like, so I'm
. If
you do so, the local self refers to the object pmc register. (I am OK
with unconditionally doing this, in which case we should define some
other guaranteed aliases)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of the big plan, and as
such is really, really important.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \Dax\ Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit.
:(
Unixen seem to support system().
D'oh! It's C89 standard. I'm getting stuck
At 4:32 PM -0800 3/10/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: *) Times (create, modify, access)
Just a reminder that ctime on Unix is not create time, but time of
last inode change. I wish there were a create time on Unix, but there
ain't.
Yup
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the object,
and directly poke at its internals.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:04 PM +0100 3/8/04, Sebastian Riedel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:10 PM +0100 3/8/04, Sebastian Riedel wrote:
Abhijit A. Mahabal wrote:
Can we add a caption to the output? Otherwise I'll end up forgetting.
Will be added in the next version.
Cool, thanks.
We also need to implement
At 8:22 AM +0100 3/5/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speed up object creation by a factor of two
That *would* be nice. *But* it's only slightly faster. You might have
had a speed up due to less memory consumption, not swapping or such,
because the leaking vtable
and generations, unfortunately.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
it *can* be done that way. Robert and Ask can direct all
three addresses to the same spot if they want. With the split they
just have more options available.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
, _end
store_global Foo, __init, P0
find_type I0, Foo
new P0, I0
print error!\n
end
_end:
print A\n
end
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even
At 9:04 AM -0800 3/4/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:58:02AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Damn. Okay, I'm going to spend today digging into the object stuff to
: try and track down the leaks. Something's not right in there, as the
: DOD and GC ought to be reclaiming the dead
At 4:51 PM +0100 3/4/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It'd be simple enough to do--prepend a PObj front to the vtables
and allocate the vtables themselves out of a separate managed
arena, and do a bit of custom mark noting. This'd make collecting
up unused vtables easy enough
At 4:45 PM +0100 3/4/04, Michael Scott wrote:
On 4 Mar 2004, at 15:51, Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib
and install them via CPAN.pm.
No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install
perl modules off the 'net any more
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
rather not go that route.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
speed up
object creation a bunch, as it doesn't need to allocate a vtable for
each object any more.
Still not great, but better.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 7:23 PM +0100 3/7/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- It's been happening for quite a while.
This one is fixed already. I've here two more fixed - one (the final) is
still sitting around.
Yeah, I saw that. I do apologize for the recent flood of e-mail--what
I
of the sun being as directly
overhead as it can be, and is thus directly tied to the behaviour of
the planet.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:29 AM +0100 3/3/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a pmc class that inherits from delegate you're out of
luck. All of delegate's methods, save init, are autogenerated, and as
such can't be inherited from.
I've put in a hackish patch to delegate
fix.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
to it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
have to make
one is probably Nov 17, 1858 at midnight, give or take a bad memory,
and our time value'll be a 64-bit integer. So think carefully before
you go there. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
to need to start shimming in the pointer store function stuff that
we've been mildly pondering for the generational GC.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 6:46 PM +0100 3/3/04, Jos Visser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:37:09AM -0500 it came to pass that Dan
Sugalski wrote:
FWIW, if we start getting into the What should our base time for the
epoch be arguments, I'll warn you that the answer if I have to make
one is probably Nov 17, 1858
At 7:15 PM +0100 3/3/04, Jos Visser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:11:46PM -0500 it came to pass that Dan
Sugalski wrote:
At 6:46 PM +0100 3/3/04, Jos Visser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:37:09AM -0500 it came to pass that Dan
Sugalski wrote:
FWIW, if we start getting into the What
extending API :/
We'll add in a highwater registry mark routine to the API.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:13 AM -1000 3/3/04, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
FWIW, if we start getting into the What should our base time for the
epoch be arguments, I'll warn you that the answer if I have to make
one is probably Nov 17, 1858 at midnight, give or take a bad memory
rather than 0-59)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 2:19 PM -1000 3/3/04, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:59 PM -0800 3/3/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:21:37AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: Anyways, I recall some discussion on p6l from years ago
At 2:21 PM -1000 3/3/04, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Gah. OK, I'm about to declare that the time op *always* returns time
as GMT, though without specifying an epoch, unless someone's got a
good reason not to. That takes at least one variable out
At 5:58 PM +0100 3/2/04, Jens Rieks wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 2. März 2004 17:19 schrieb Dan Sugalski:
At 5:13 PM +0100 3/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Parrot's object support is not yet good enough to be able to
convert the game to use ParrotObjects.
What is missing?
Constructors
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
on there.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 5:16 PM -0700 2/26/04, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
At 2:38 PM +0100 2/26/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Simplifies compilers:
newclass P1, Foo
addattribute P1, i
findclass I1, Foo
new P2, I1
classoffset I2, P2
In static cases, where P2 is known
At 7:57 AM +0100 2/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rule is that a method in a class has access to the attributes for
that class and nothing else.
Ah, that was the reason of my confusion. Could you adapt the docs
accordingly:
Yep. I'll patch that up
level. I'll beef up the explanation in PDD15.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 4:10 PM +0100 2/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:09 AM +0100 2/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
makes me wonder, ifn't such method functions should get a PMC of the
class, for which the method was called
Yes... and no.
The class in which the method
901 - 1000 of 3756 matches
Mail list logo
