;it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
programs aren't all that tiny, either. Ten lines isn't
much unless one of them's "use CGI;" or "use Net::FTP". And there are huge
gobs of those.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sug
5, and saw a rather
significant performance hit. ~20% IIRC, but the numbers are in the p5p
archives somewhere.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 08:43 PM 10/23/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 08:33 PM 10/23/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
as for ziggy's comments on the overload of builtins issue there could be
a simple dispatch table used instead of direct calls
.
I don't see anything that distinguishes this from the ordinary process of
generating code with a runtime library and a stack.
There isn't, much.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 03:28 PM 10/23/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
(Though if someone comes up with a way to make the
platform-dependent bits really small and isolated I'm all for it)
Hmm... I'm 99.9% ignorant on this subject, but doesn't
At 12:54 AM 10/24/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS So unless we come up with something concrete, the goals are:
DS 1) A nebulous ~10% faster
DS 2) Faster in the things that annoy Dan the most
DS 3) Faster in the OO bits
At 01:23 AM 10/24/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Nope, that's not a win, because it can't happen. There needs to be
DS an intermediate representation that can be run through an
DS optimizer. The output of the optim
sort of IO thing down deep in the core...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
neither
At 06:40 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
rewrite, and I don't think we want
,
there's no reason the core can't fake it to look like they are...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
At 03:23 PM 10/2/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 03:15 PM 10/2/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, yeah, it'll sort of have to if we allow user-defined types. If
you do:
my Dog $spot : male;
then the Dog package needs to be able to fetch the attributes. I've
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
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
even have software for you to have issues with yet.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
mmand procedures to batch, was 13 quotes in a row. Let's *not*
go there, thanks.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t had much reason to use it. (The same can be said
for OO programming, undef, and regular expressions) Whether (and how) it
should be in perl is another matter entirely, of course.
Dan
--"it's like this"----
and just ignore it unless we're in a taint-checking block.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 12:52 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally
undo 'no taint'.
Actually, from my talks with Larry
At 07:09 PM 9/27/00 -0400, James Mastros wrote:
From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Nathan Wiger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
rules for that should
At 07:53 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
through a "no taint&q
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
-To. This is BCC'd to perl6-internals).
Perhaps perl6-stdlib would be an even better place for it, if it's going in
as part of the standard library.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
it being a visible
language feature, so if folks really dislike it I'll withdraw the
suggestion and quietly slip the feature in anyway where nobody can see it... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
the type being assigned to it. (Or so is my understanding of what Larry
wants for 'shortcut types' like int, float, or str)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 12:42 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:28 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
But scalars are not compact.
Since scalars are singular things, how would you compact them anyway?
If I say $a = ones(float,10,10) in PDL then each element
this in perl 5, and will undoubtedly be able
to do it in perl 6, with source filters. (If Damian can write perl that
looks like Latin or Klingon, then python ought to be simple... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
"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
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 12:38 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
suppor
rays, have
multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
give values still linked to the original matrices.
Has anyone asked for complex number support yet?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
rs in many languages are
essentially equivalent and it's reasonable to want them to be treated the
same way when that's appropriate.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
ck. (Not that it's a bad strategy,
mind... :)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
that be $baz = 3, since the middle list would be taken in scalar
context?
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SOME_SOCKET);
Or something like that, at least...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:18 AM 8/23/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:35 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: However, for Perl 6 I'd really like to see run-time access to the
: Real Tokenizer (tm):
:
: use tokenizer;
:
: my $tree = tokenizer( $sourcecode
the
whole package variable and package subroutines thing... :)
AUTOLOAD for methods and symbolic refs are by far a bigger issue for a
comprehensive "Dump just what this object needs" thing.
Dan
--"it's like thi
e doing the freezing has
some clue as to what's going on.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
er me with "use eval" then ;-)
I hope you're speaking from a perl level--a segfault pretty much spells
"Game Over"...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 11:46 PM 8/15/00 -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered:
| Doesn't it make more sense to get rid of arrays and just use hashes?
|
| I guess it depends on what you think makes sense; but it seems to me
| that an array
At 11:09 AM 8/16/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Numbers and strings really aren't different things, at least not as far as
people are concerned. They are for machines, but computer languages
ultimately aren't for machines, they're for people.
I guess I can't fault you
At 09:49 PM 8/16/00 +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Generality good.
For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality
) to build associative arrays from arrays, than vice versa.
It's silly to throw either of them out. Perl might be many things, but a
reductionist language it ain't...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
At 05:53 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Tossing the worthless and confusing ones is good. Tossung the useless
and distinguishing ones is bad.
Uh, which ones did you have in mind, by "useless and distinguishing"? ;-)
D'oh! (or is that now D::oh?
At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Generality good.
For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality bad.
Specificity and specialization good. People aren't generalists. They're a
collection of specialists. The distinction is important
to be the driving force behind a lot of
the stuff in perl...)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
will still be using 1970 as the epoch in
the year 31,536.
Nah. I'm sure we'll have switched over to Elvis' birthday as base date by
then... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski
-1858 00:00:00.00, for some astronomical
reason IIRC.
It's the Smithsonian Base Date, FWIW. On VMS, though, perl presents all
time in Unix epoch seconds.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
date preceded the
oldest star catalogue in use at SAO, which also avoided having to use
negative time in any of the satellite tracking calculations.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
representation settles down first. You may find a lot of this isn't
actually necessary.
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
ience from languages that
already do it.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
At 12:48 PM 8/13/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
I don't mind if someone overrides the vtable functions for a variable of a
built-in type--a standard declaration of:
my $foo;
is really shorthand for:
my generic_scalar $foo;
more or less
At 12:23 PM 8/12/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Yup. It's an issue for things that implement any non-standard semantics for
: existing ops, especially if those ops are overridden at runtime so the
: optimizer doesn't know. It's one thing to mess with tied variables, its
At 12:54 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Nope. The code that accessses the array needs to support it. Different
DS animal entirely. The ops don't actually need to know.
but still that is overhead code for all arrays an
At 02:29 PM 8/11/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
Yes. But what about types and attributes within complex types
of that.
"JH" == Jeremy Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JH Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
JH Yes. But what about types and attributes within com
? (And which should we avoid, lazy evals or functional programming?)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have t
t it could keep some of the more sublte
"whoops"es from happening.
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
equivalent of magic, which should be even cheaper.
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
At 05:46 PM 8/10/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:28:05PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No, it wouldn't, really. We could make "use fatal;" scoped, so that the
quit op (or whatever it is) only jumps through all its hoops if the
pragma's in effect. If its not,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Decklin Foster wrote:
Syloke Soong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my $varname type;
The syntax
my $varname : constant; # pun not intended :)
Was brought up earlier (but probably not before this RFC was written).
Perhaps something similar could be used for
the first dev release--perl 6.-1.0?) but could get added in as modules and
make it into perl 6.2.0 or something)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
where two packages in the same file use different versions of module C and
get them?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:11 AM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Does that mean, then, that when module A does a "$C::bar = 1" it affects a
: different package namespace than module B doing a "$C::bar = 2"?
Presumably.
H. That brings up some issues of ambiguity
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
" to actually make something happen...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
uot;cat", but "10.0"ne"10". Both are arguably
wrong--dogs aren't cats, but 10.0 really is 10...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
couch potatoes")
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
igEndian, Intel (x86) is LittleEndian. TIFF marks the files with either
"MM" or "II".
Yep, except for the PowerPC and 88k chips, which can do either, or the
i860, which was BigEndian IIRC...
Dan
------"it
.
This, FWIW, is because the PDP-11 (as opposed to all the other PDP
families) was a 16-bit machine, so this is actually two words each in
little-endian storage...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
something like:
print "$kitty\n";
Chomp removes one or more line separators from the end.
Chomp only removes one instance of the record separator from the end.
Dan
--"it's like this"----
At 11:13 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:46:32 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * @baz;
Given that the default action of the multiply routine for an array in
non-scalar context would be to die, allowing user-overrides of the
functions would probably
At 09:16 PM 8/9/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
Which sort of argues for localtime in a numeric scalar context to return
epoch seconds, in a string scalar context to return a time string,
and in a
plain scalar context a hashref
At 01:50 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 11:11 AM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Dan Sugalski writes:
: : Does that mean, then, that when module A does a "$C::bar = 1" it
affects a
: : different package namespace than module B doing a &q
At 08:18 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
run out of precision in double
At 10:33 PM 8/9/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Both the l and rvalues will need to participate.
Sorry. Quick review of how C++ does it indicates that
selecting an assignment operator from the lvalue's methods
makes sense.
Sure, and using the rvalue makes sense too
not) They change the behaviour of the generated code, yes, but not the
lexing/parsing/whatever of the perl source.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 05:39 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:41:22 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * 12;
@foo = map { $_ * 12 } @bar;
I don't see the need for a new notation.
Well, compactness for one. With a scalar on one side it's less odd (it was
a bad
to store the record separator (or
a pointer to the filehandle holding the record separator)?
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
: 2
Status: Developing
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 48
Is this an update to the original RFC 48 with a new title? Or is it a new
RFC mis-numbered?
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
At 02:29 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
Dan Sugalski said:
Which brings up the questions:
* What about scalars that didn't come from filehandles?
* Should the chomp function use the filehandle's current separator, or the
one in effect when it was read?
* Do we even want
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
Ted Ashton said:
Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
how do you tell the above two apart? by array do you mean only an array
variable? then you can't chomp a list of scalar values or multiple
arrays, etc.
this needs
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Damian Conway wrote:
If you take this, I won't be able to port the forthcoming Klingon.pm
module to Perl 6!!!
And this would be a bad thing how, exactly? :)
I SHOULD KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND
But, but... I'm sitting! :-P
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Mike Pastore wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you feel the need, it should be possible to let you do this, or at
least a part of it for one or three ops, with a module. I think it might
be better to wait until the plain way's in and then embellish
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Damian Conway wrote:
Perl used to use $pkg'var instead of the modern $pkg::var. This is still
in Perl 5. It's gotta go. (At least, it should.)
N!
If you take this, I won't be able to port the forthcoming Klingon.pm
module to Perl 6!!!
And this
rform well.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
when putting together the RFC for it, if someone even does.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:27 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 10:07 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 12:53 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There are a wide range of tricky problems associated with deep copy
and
deep
501 - 600 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
