On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In this example:
% cat continuation6.ruby
def strange
callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
end
def outer
a = 0
strange()
a = a + 1
print "a = ", a, "\n"
end
Through the joys of reference types, a will continue to increas
Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
Dynamic languages have a few features in common:
- Very weak typing with lots of automatic conversion.
- Oddball control f
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>
>> I think, when going down the class hierarchy, we just have to call
>> class->vtable->find_method() again, istead of the Parrot_find_global.
> If "we" is Parrot_CompositeObject_find_method, then I'm quite OK with
> that. If "we" is
Bill Coffman writes:
> I can see that there is true magic in the power of using references in
> this way. Nonetheless, how can the compiler figure out that it can't
> use an integer here? The compiler should use integers when it can,
> but it sounds like you are saying that when a variable crosse
Cameron~
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:53:32 +1000, Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
>
> Also could the Parrot VM be used effectively with strong typing
> languages. I
Hey,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell where
> you can define a function
>
> len [] = 0
> len [ _ | A ] = 1 + len A
Actually, in Haskell this would be:
len [] = 0
len (_:a) = 1 + len a
>
On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:33, Matt Fowles wrote:
Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell
Will there be haskell on parrot? How easy/hard would that be?
Just curious, Richard
I've no idea, but the GHC team recently changed their backend from gcc
to c--, so maybe that has potential?
It would certainly be interesting to see how interopability is handled.
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:47:05 +, Richard Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:3
Bill~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:12:30 -0800, Bill Coffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:45:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
> > >% cat continuation6.ruby
> > >def strange
> > > callcc {|continuation|
Michael~
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:44:37 -0500, Michael Walter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0500, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell where
> > you can define a function
> >
> > len [] = 0
>
Sam Ruby wrote:
Python provides the ability for any function to be called with either
positional or keyword [1] arguments. Here is a particularly brutal
example:
args={'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}
def f(a,b,c): return (a,b,c)
def g(b,c,a): return (a,b,c)
for j in [f,g]: print j(1,2,3)
At 10:29 PM -0500 11/30/04, Sam Ruby wrote:
Python provides the ability for any function to be called with
either positional or keyword [1] arguments. Here is a particularly
brutal example:
Oh, it's even more brutal than that. Perl 6 goes one step further,
such that you can't tell whether a nam
Some languages go even farther than those basic characteristics; Perl
5, for example, has four hooks to run code at odd times (as soon as
it's parsed, once compilation is complete, immediately after execution
starts, and right before the program closes). Perl and Python at
least have object format
At 12:06 AM -0800 12/1/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In this example:
% cat continuation6.ruby
def strange
callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
end
def outer
a = 0
strange()
a = a + 1
print "a = ", a, "\n"
end
Through the joys
At 10:12 PM -0800 11/30/04, Bill Coffman wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:45:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
>% cat continuation6.ruby
>def strange
> callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
>end
>
>def outer
> a = 0
Hey,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the implementation of IronPython [1] shows that it's quite
> possible to run some kind of Python on the CLR infrastructure.
Python is kind of easy to port over to CLR, because it has no
continuations - Clos
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:34:57AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The FAQ mentions that the JVM and CLR (.Net VM) are not suited to
> > dynamic languages. I was wondering why this is the case.
>
> Dynamic languages have a few features in commo
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:59:48 +0100, Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:34:57AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> > Cameron Zemek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that "oddball control flow constructs" like closures are
> proper to dynamic langua
At 4:53 PM +1000 12/1/04, Cameron Zemek wrote:
[Yeah, I snipped the first question. It's early, and I've not had
enough coffee :)]
Also could the Parrot VM be used effectively with strong typing languages.
Absolutely. At least some of the languages we're interested in,
specifically perl 5 and pe
At 2:47 PM + 12/1/04, Richard Jolly wrote:
On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:33, Matt Fowles wrote:
Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell
Will there be haskell on parrot? How easy/hard would that be?
Dunno if there will (though I'd love it) and it shouldn't be too
hard. That'd be
To help us stay focused on the ultimate goal, I'm going to pause and
take a minute to clarify what is and isn't up for current discussion.
"Current discussion" here meaning "until we're functionally complete
and pass a comprehensive test suite".
*) Unclear parts of the existing architecture are
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dunno if there will (though I'd love it) and it shouldn't be too hard.
Just delurking for a moment to mention that for various reasons I recently
wrote a (much of) Haskell --> lazy SK machine compiler. The SK machine is
reasonably simple, and I have vague
On Dec 1, 2004, at 7:23 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:06 AM -0800 12/1/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In this example:
% cat continuation6.ruby
def strange
callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
end
def outer
a = 0
strange()
a = a + 1
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But so it sounds like I and N registers are a bit of a waste then, no?
A bit? They would be utterly useless.
As a plain:
add Px, Py, Pz
(as well as almost any other PMC related opcode) can be overloaded by
running a PASM/PIR function, there is no usag
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #32749]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32749 >
Hi,
after the recent update, which cleaned up globals in the IMCC parser, PA
All,
As with most technical problems, fully specifying them, is often half
the battle. In this case, I think we're getting close to
understanding the issues at least.
[please treat all statements as possible questions]
First, consider my original post in this thread:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/gr
26 matches
Mail list logo
