Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:46:48 +0100
From: tim.bu...@pobox.com
To: faw...@gmail.com
CC: ben-goldb...@hotmail.com; perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Lessons to learn from ithreads (was: threads?)
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 03:42:00PM +0200, Leon Timmermans wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at
Luke Palmer wrote:
Wow, what an old thread...
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
Abhijit A. Mahabal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, if you wanted to say true for all except exactly
one value, I can't think of a way.
Easy. The following two statements are
Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Taking a thread from Perl 6 Internals. Will Perl 6 support this behavior?
$ perl 'EOT'
my @ary;
my $ref = \$ary[0];
$$ref = value;
print '$ary[0] : ', $ary[0], \n;
EOT
Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while loop. In
Larry Wall wrote:
[snip]
Nope. $x and $p are syntax trees.
blink
Macros are passed syntax trees as arguments, but return coderefs?
That's... odd.
I would expect that a macro would be expected to *return* a syntax
tree... which could then undergo (more) macro-expansion.
Sortof like how in
Chromatic wrote:
[snip]
I think you want to declare I comply with ruleset X at the callee
object level. That enables the compiler to (1) check that you're not
lying; and (2) optimize based on (1).
At least one of us is using caller/callee in the X11 sense. What I
mean and what I think
Luke Palmer wrote:
grammar Grammars::Languages::C::Preprocessor {
rule CompilationUnit {
( Directive | UnprocessedStuff )*
}
rule Directive {
Hash ( Include
| Line
| Conditional
| Define
) Continuation*
}
rule
David Storrs wrote:
Thinking about it, I'd rather see lvalue slices become a nicer version
of Csplice().
my @start = (0..5);
my @a = @start;
@a[1..3] = qw/ a b c d e /;
print @a; # 0 a b c d e 4 5
What would happen if I used 1,2,3 instead of 1..3? Would it do
Luke Palmer wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Thinking about it, I'd rather see lvalue slices become a nicer version
of Csplice().
my @start = (0..5);
my @a = @start;
@a[1..3] = qw/ a b c d e /;
print @a; # 0 a b c d e 4 5
What would happen if I
Dave Whipp wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
@a[1..3] = qw/ a b c d e /;
print @a; # 0 a b c d e 4 5
What would happen if I used 1,2,3 instead of 1..3?
Would it do the same thing?
Of course.
I tend to agree, I think
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
All values needing timely destruction would inherit from a class
RefCounted.
I like this concept a lot, but maybe we can take it a little further
and make it transparent to the programmer. Suppose
After reading Leopold Toetsch's post, I'm going to simplify part of my
proposal slightly.
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
[snip]
To avoid premature cleanup, any time that the contents of a
refcounted variable is assigned to a non-refcounted variable, an
opcode to set a reachable by non-refcounted
Piers Cawley wrote:
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030601
Another Monday, another Perl 6 Summary. Does this man never take a
holiday? (Yes, but only to go to Perl conferences this year, how did
that happen?)
We start with the internals list as usual.
More
13 matches
Mail list logo
