es in them.
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 12:36 PM 4/10/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:28:29AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
if (-M "http://www.perl.com/" -M "http://www.python.org/") {...}
Nope. Doesn't work with other magic f
Abstraction is nice, but it's abstraction made concrete that does the heavy
lifting. An abstract bicycle isn't going to get a real problem very far...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
white here. Arguing against
one particular proposal doesn't make one minimalist, any more than arguing
for a proposal makes one a maximalist. There's plenty of space in the middle.
Dan
--"it's like this"----
At 09:48 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
the very least, I want a short flag!
But by the time people
it's parsing code for a module.
(Via the "module" keyword)
This all might change, of course, but that's my understanding of things as
they stand now.
Dan
--"it's like this"----
ve
that much of one.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
for perl 6 or not, but that's a far cry from parsing
perl 5 code generally.
That is, the syntax will not be compatible.
That turns out not to be the case.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
/damian/Perl5+i/open.html
Yes, but the agency *has* disavowed all knowledge... :-P
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:40 PM 4/6/2001 +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't
see any reason that:
@foo[1,2] = STDIN;
shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why
Fair
ATION DIVISION"
For some reason that brings to mind scenes from _Brazil_. (And not the
happy ending version :) I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Da
$foo-POK;
to retrieve the POK flag, say.)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 08:54 PM 4/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 03:50:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(We could even make
perl 5 completely OO if you wanted to write some code for the
SCALAR/HASH/ARRAY packages. Presumably in C, if you wanted to do:
$foo = "12";
"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
I doubt the parser will be all in perl for perl 6. Some maybe, and it will
likely use the regex engine, but I don't see it being all in perl. (And
yes, I know what Larry's said)
Dan
--"it's like this"--
my impression might
be wrong or incomplete.
Irregularity seems to come in with the new, and gets beaten down a bit with
long usage.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 10:43 PM 4/3/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:20:11PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dunno--the older a language is, the more regular it seems to be. (The
rough
edges get worn off, I assume) While Latin had a reasonably complex set of
rules, it was more regular
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 03:30 PM 3/30/2001 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Dan Sugalski wrote:
:contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally
speaking most people won't use it and the optimizer
will have to infer whether it's safe to not execute
functions with
return values. No stack and/or register manipulation needed for the return.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
a native
compiler for Perl with advanced garbage collector, just like
Scheme or Strongtalk compiler?
What, as opposed to the interpreter with advanced garbage collector? :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
gs to
try.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 06:22 PM 3/29/2001 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This will probably be harder in Perl than in C because C can afford to
take more time to do global optimization passes.
DS I'm hoping to have this stage of optimization in
t function are
idempotent--what matters is whether it's OK for us to go and memoize the
things (or whatever else we might choose to do)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski
At 11:22 AM 3/28/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It doesn't really matter if the functions inside the sort function are
idempotent--what matters is whether it's OK for us to go and memoize the
things (or whatever else we might choose to do)
Exactly, that's what I've been
At 01:22 PM 3/28/2001 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm actually considering whether we even need to care what the
programmer's said. If we can just flat-out say "We may optimize your
sort function, and we make no guarantees as to the number of
At 07:37 PM 3/26/2001 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're ignoring side-effects. The tied data may well be returned the
same every time it's accessed, but that doesn't mean that things aren't
happening behind the scenes. What if we were tracking
At 09:26 AM 3/27/2001 -0800, Peter Buckingham wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 09:50 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
[..]
I'd think /perl/ should complain if your comparison function isn't
idempotent (if warnings on, of course). If nothing else, it's probably an
indicator
At 11:42 AM 3/26/2001 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 05:09 PM 3/23/2001 -0800, Damien Neil wrote:
So the results of ord are dependent on a global setting for
"current character set" or some such, not on the encoding
of
i-constant... (Imagine returning tied data from a function loaded in via
do(). Imagine the optimizer. Imagine Dan's brain popping out of his head
and hiding behind the bookcase)
Dan
--"it's like this"----
At 04:33 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The only issue there is whether memoization is appropriate. It could be
argued that it isn't (it certainly isn't with perl 5) though I for one
wouldn't mind being able to more aggressively assume that data was
semi
($a) = rand($b)} @nums;
Right.
Will the above generate a more random list than this?
No, it will generate a more crashed perl.
I thought we fixed that particular core dump.
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
At 04:04 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 03:36:08PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The only issue there is whether memoization is appropriate. It could be
argued that it isn't (it certainly isn't with perl 5)
Hm. I don't see a linguistic reason why it isn't
At 07:01 PM 3/26/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
If we disallow changing the attributes on subs at runtime,
Probably a good idea anyway, at least for a subset of attributes,
such as :idempotent (or :constant).
Oh, it's a fine idea, and I'm personally all for it. Anything
Folks, this thread has gotten out of hand. Do please stop.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
u're doing. :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
*really* don't need to go
there...) Yeah, it means the process will be bursty, but that's just the
nature of the beast.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
strikes me as a perfectly reasonable reason to learn
Japanese. (It's the one I use... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
are
clever, and they can learn.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
dical equipment..."
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 10:38 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization attached to
them. Full refcounting isn't required, however.
I think I've heard you state that before. Can you be more specific? What
ne for
a perl with extensions.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:33 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I think I've heard you state that before. Can you be more specific? What
alternate system do you have in mind? Is this just wishful thinking?
This isn't just wishful thinking, no.
You picked
At 01:59 PM 2/12/2001 -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I do wish people would get garbage collection and finalization split in
their minds. They are two separate things which can, and will, be dealt
with separately.
For the record:
THE GARBAGE COLLECTOR WILL HAVE
At 09:08 PM 2/12/2001 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:38 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization
attached to
them. Full refcounting
At 01:44 PM 2/12/2001 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:28:00 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, that's another issue, and one I keep forgetting about, though the fact
that we don't do predictable finalization on some objects isn't a good
Yes, I know I promised
At 10:46 AM 2/12/2001 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:29:21 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:38 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization
attached
At 11:28 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
At 15:37 12/02/2001 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
It *is* rare in OO perl, though. How many of the variables you use are
really, truly in need of finalization? .1 percent? .01 percent? Less? Don't
forget that you need to count every scalar in every
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ug a batch of perl memory leaks to see how well the
refcount scheme seems to be working now...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s--objects that come and go,
temporary buffers, scratch space, and suchlike things. It's normal.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 06:30 PM 2/9/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 01:19:36PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The less memory you chew through the faster your code will probably be (or
at least you'll have less overhead). Reuse is generally faster and less
resource-intensive than
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 09:42 AM 2/9/2001 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Seperated documentation is no documentation.
At some point things are going to get split out, unless you wedge the docs
into the actual program itself. (You were, after all
Is this something that
the oft discussed use {less,more} {memory,speed} pragma could hook into ?
Sure. Using it to alter the frequency of garbage collection's not an
inappropriate thing to do.
Dan
--"it's like th
"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:52 AM 2/8/2001 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better
off if
we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
Sure, except...
1) You
At 02:43 PM 2/8/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better off
if
we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
Seems easier to ship that way than as an archive of stuff. (We can, if its
At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
This is an excellent reason, and one I hadn't considered. I withdraw any
objections. Care to put together a PDD on how it should be handled?
(Including Archive::Tar as part
At 05:58 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Do we really want to use tar format (over say cpio) as tar rounds files
up to 512 block boundaries, and has some arbitrary
At 05:49 PM 2/8/2001 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:31:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source
in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the
fact on the generated
y used PPM, only read about it in
the web. I guess their file format is a disguised .tar.gz, right?
Disguised .zip.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 08:44 AM 2/6/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:04:06PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Granted, if this was all done with trusted servers it would be really neat,
but...
TANSTAATS.
Cute, but not entirely true. There are an awful lot of servers off the
internet
ocal cache wouldn't make
things better. Faster, yes, but arguably even less secure, if that's possible)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
, then?
$foo = sub {print caller{subname}};
$foo-();
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 09:58 PM 2/5/2001 +, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:35:59AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:17 PM 2/5/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
I think that, if you want this behavior, a module that implements it
would be just fine. (Why muck with "use"?) To use a m
At 07:02 PM 2/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
I'm fine with silly things, it's dangerous things I don't much care for.
Which isn't to say I'm against loading remote program code, I just think
this isn't the way to do it.
use autoload { Bar = 'uddi://blah/some
it. They'll likely be done as they're encountered, though that does
mean that your libs will be set before you need them, unless you order your
source really strangely.
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:01 AM 2/2/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The last
thing I want is for every module to automagically export all (or even
some)
of its functions. That way lies namespace pollution *real* fast.
I don't see why this is a concern. Unless some explicit arrangement
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
seem to be getting a little out of hand, but it might get something
useful, so I'm hesitant to stop things quite yet.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 11:57 PM 1/31/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:35:03PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:23:43PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Pulling out or mangling time strikes me as intensely pointless, and I
don't
see it happening. The socket
that. (Including, I'm sure, things I've forgotten)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 03:44 PM 2/1/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The module loaded can define the routines as either regular
perl subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
mainly) and could be the standard mix of perl
At 04:54 PM 2/1/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or
the heavy unicode things?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use of
a function
At 12:33 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
One of the features of perl 6 is going to be the ability to automatically
use a module if one or more preregistered functions are used in your
source.
Would someone care
At 02:04 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:33 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Have a look at AnyLoader in CPAN.
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect
At 09:49 PM 2/1/2001 +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The module loaded can define the routines as either regular perl
subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
mainly) [...]
Difference in calling convention at the user level
At 07:34 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Looks pretty close to what's needed. Care to flesh it out (and streamline
it where needed) to a PDD?
Isn't the trick to detect the necessary modules
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
on the internals list archive somewhere.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
is available.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
ugh if he had a
list of things he hated I'd be thrilled to read it. (I'll take vicious,
pointed criticism over vague praise any day)
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
. ('Course, there's
the question of getting there, but that's a separate issue)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 03:43 PM 12/28/00 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
use sort qw(radix_sort);
sort \radix_sort @data;
Isn't that the slot where the comparison function goes?
Maybe something more like this:
use sort::radix_sort;
sort @data; # magically uses radix_sort instead
. It does mean that the public responses to off-topic mail
must be polite and pleasant.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 10:22 AM 10/24/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:11:21AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I like the idea of returning multiple results in multiple registers. Pity
nothing on the planet could link to us if we did that... :(
not quite. On the ARM compiler [targeted
overnight?
Got me. I'd planned on us writing perl 6 in INTERCAL. (Or SNOBOL, I'm still
undecided... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 07:47 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Got me. I'd planned on us writing perl 6 in INTERCAL.
PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
A... you're no fun! :)
Incidentally, and just to try and raise the tone a little, are we
At 08:18 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
A... you're no fun! :)
I am, but nurse says I'm not allowed to write INTERCAL any more.
Well, maybe we can do it in befunge instead
At 09:01 PM 10/23/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:37:02PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Oh, without a doubt. I'd actually like to get things building such that
the
four main modules--parser, bytecode compiler, optimizer, and execution
engine--are in separate shared
401 - 500 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
