and perl 6
stories on slashdot, at 0, so if I don't actually have to do so,
well... so much the better usually. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
behaviour in the
register allocator. The biggest sub I can find off-hand is 69496
lines, from an original source language that stuffs about 400K of
source text into a single routine...
--
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
,
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good luck!
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 6:21 AM -0700 7/6/04, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we need a Perl 6 pumpking,
Luke Palmer.
No fair volunteering other people, though I'd be happy to forward
*your* volunteering on to Allison... :-P
--
Dan
--it's like
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
be difficult)
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
with scissors then convert
your string to a binary byte buffer and go from there. At least then when
you poke out an eye you won't be nearly so surprised.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but graphemes
--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
not, which is fine too)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 11:03 AM -0700 5/6/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:52:45PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 10:44 AM -0700 5/6/04, chromatic wrote:
: On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 10:39, Aaron Sherman wrote:
:
: The simple case is:
:
: sub foo(X $i is rw) {...}
: class X
At 11:42 AM -0700 5/6/04, chromatic wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 11:24, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well... sort of, but only because you've defined that for perl 6
classes automatically do themselves--you've conflated inheritance and
interface. Which is fine, except that it falls down in the face
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
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
some sample code to
go with your question, and we'll just tell Dan to make it work. :-)
No problem.
Throwing an exception counts as working, right? :-P
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
in that case the named parameters need to degrade nicely (and in
place) to their values.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 10:51 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/20/04 10:42 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:50 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 7:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, no, we're still stuck at run-time validation of that. In the case
of methods you can't really do anything else
with classes that have parents
written in languages without named parameters. (Like, say, all the
rest...)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 1:50 PM -0400 4/19/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 1:41 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:14 PM -0400 4/19/04, John Siracusa wrote:
I know we are running out of special characters, but I really, really think
that required named parameters are a natural fit for many common APIs.
Well... maybe
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
', and only three would be knowingly used.
Irony is wasted on perl6-language.
And this is a new revelation?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
can
make it difficult to properly deal with, and allowing them to be
unloaded requires a fair amount of thought.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
many of the
sets and encodings don't go out of their way to help with that.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
with that.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
with the :begin property on them, or something like that)
--
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
add
some tests to the test suite once we expose this bit of the engine.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
At 9:15 AM -0800 2/17/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:39:07AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 8:30 AM -0800 2/17/04, Larry Wall wrote:
: So perhaps we need a different word than does to indicate that
: you want to include the Dog interface without including the Dog
.
--
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
is done, Parrot may either cache the created
interpreter or destroy it as it needs to, though in no case will
Parrot ever leave a pool with no interpreters at all.
=back
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
this, let alone roll it out on the
floor.
Don't worry, when that happens I'll make a lot of noise. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
And should stay off-list, thanks.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
it to.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
with it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
the changes proposed in properties as
part of the whole shift to roles thing they aren't anything like
sticky notes at all, as they dynamically subclass the object.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
be
able to do this, at least not to start with. And definitely not the
anonymous version. Maybe for perl 6.2 or 6.4.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
Luke Palmer:
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Bah, should be able to!
Will be able to.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Luke Palmer:
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively
... :-)
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
, for scalar control structures.)
This shouldn't be a problem. If there's potential ambiguity then the
optimization can't be applied. Modulo optimizer bugs you'll be fine.
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
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
eval($block) if defined $block;
I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch
around the call.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows
for Tail Recursion Optimization.
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
How can I conveniently pass an extra parameter to a historically binary
operator?
If it's one of the 'base' binary operators (addition, subtraction, and
whatnot) you don't.
Dan
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
Todd W. writes:
I have a question/request concerning perl6 object properties.
Rather, attributes. Properties are out-of-band data attached to a
particular object.
FWIW, attribute and property are two words that have a meaning that
shifts depending
that it is)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
... for symmetry, I'm now thinking I ought to have called it
parrot-0.00.11.1.tar.gz.
And all we need now is a 0.0.11.2, with patches to allow four-element
version numbers...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Andy Wardley wrote:
chromatic wrote:
The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly say
Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this application
at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
application.
In
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime?
Unless the class has been explicitly closed, yes.
That strikes me as back-to-front.
The easy
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ph. Marek wrote:
You can, of course, stop even potential optimization once the first I can
change the rules operation is found, but since even assignment can change
the rules that's where we are right now. We'd like to get better by
optimizing based on what we can see
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
Of course having a no subclasses tag means the compiler can change a
method call into a direct subroutine call, but I would hope
On 13 Sep 2003, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Next Apocalypse is objects, and that'll take time.
Objects are *worth* more time than a lot of the other topics.
Arguably, they're just as important as subroutines, in a modern
language.
Oh, I
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, the standard library, however large or small that will be, will
definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java you
can't subclass String, because we think you shouldn't crap.
Great.
On 15 Sep 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Piers Cawley wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Burr writes:
In theory you could write one as a perl6 macro, although it would be
more convenient if there was someway of obtaining the syntax tree of a
previously defined function other than quoting it
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't entirely an easy task, however, since you can't throw away
or redo a function/method/sub/whatever that you're already in
somewhere in the call-chain, which means any optimizations will
have
)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of code motion, reordering, or
simplification, unfortunately. :(
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
This is mostly just a gratuitous message so that Piers has something
to talk about in the next summary ;-), but when's the next
Apocalypse due out?
Well, I don't know if Leon (Hi Piers!) has better information than I do,
but the short answer is
On 14 Aug 2003, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
Hi
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Sometime after perl 5's syntax and features
At 1:02 PM -0700 8/5/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
Can I discriminate on parameter names using multi subs?
Nope. Named parameters don't participate in MMD.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 10:37 AM -0400 6/17/03, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:31:54PM -, Dan Sugalski wrote:
For methods, each object is ultimately responsible for deciding what to
do when a method is called. Since objects generally share a class-wide
vtable, the classes are mostly responsible
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adam Turoff wrote:
Damian just got finished his YAPC opening talk, and managed to allude
to dispatching and autoloading.
As it *appears* today, regular dispatching and multimethod dispatching
are going to be wired into the langauge (as appropriate). Runtime
dispatch
At 11:09 AM -0800 3/31/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:13 PM +0200 3/31/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 07:45:30AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
I've been thinking about closures, continuations, and coroutines,
and
one
At 7:35 AM -0800 4/1/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:09 AM -0800 3/31/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:13 PM +0200 3/31/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 07:45:30AM -0800, Austin Hastings
preemptive threading model.
No, this isn't negotiable.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
verb here]! bandwagon,
perhaps we'd be better served figuring out what would be useful
operations and support for/on DAGs and suchlike things?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 4:47 PM +0100 3/26/03, Robin Berjon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I think that the issue here isn't so much good perl support for XML
as it is good support for attributed DAGs, something which would be
of general good use for perl, since the ASTs the parser feeds to
the compiler will ultimately
in the
apocalypses, can have a lot of impact, so if you have more than a yes
or no then there's a possibility.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
the concepts behind ML more accessible to folks used to procedural
languages. Darned good idea--I say start right away!
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 11:52 AM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
don't quite work, and
coroutines could pull it off if we could pass data back into a
coroutine on reinvocation, but...
We do, after all, want this fast, right?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 4:52 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
By compile-time interpolation. foo isn't so much a subroutine as
a macro. For this to work, if we had:
foo: \w+?
bar: [plugh]{2,5}
then what the regex engine *really* got
At 10:41 AM -0600 3/19/03, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:09:01AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
By the time the regex is actually executed, it's fully specified. By
definition if nothing else--you aren't allowed to selectively
redefine rules in the middle of a regex
At 5:38 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:09:01AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At the time I run the regex, I can inline things. There's nothing
that prevents it. Yes, at compile time it's potentially an issue,
since things can be overridden later,
OK
At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules.
This is precisely what a macro does.
Not once execution starts
At 5:54 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules
At 8:04 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:35:19PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'll nudge Larry to add it explicitly, but in general redefinitons
of code that you're in the middle of executing don't take effect
immediately, and it's not really any different
At 9:14 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:31:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, I'm not 100% sure we need it for rules. Simon's point is
well-taken, but on further reflection what we're doing is
subclassing the existing grammar and reinvoking the regex
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
.
Unwrapping puts the pointer back again and removes the under-the-hood
messing about, once again transparently.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
on that)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:07 AM -0800 3/14/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:07 PM + 3/14/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Brad Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
[...]
Nope, send it to TPF as discussed. It's what I've said in all
the
summaries
can just rebuild our stuff based on the
new layout because we've got a notification method registered)
--
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
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
for the low-level type, but...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
1 - 100 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
