t
"most CS educated folks" ought to know (a category a number of us don't
necessarily fall into), it's handy to know where to look to brush up on the
details of the thing in question.
Dan
--"it's like th
At 12:04 AM 8/7/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 01:38:13 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Even in perl5 an XS module can do _anything at all_.
It can't access data the lexer's already tossed out. That's where the
current format format (so to speak) runs you into trouble.
Only
it was.)
Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to hoist things to
outer scope levels internally (for when we return objects from subs) so it
might be worth generalizing things.
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 01:21 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Fre
f the sort.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
won't always be passing objects around, I suppose.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
correctly without actually writing the code that
uses it...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this looks, it has some pretty significant ramifications
for the internals. What, for example, should happen if you deep-copy a DBI
object attached to an Oracle database?
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
out. That's where the
current format format (so to speak) runs you into trouble.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
question, given that's almost a year off.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
be perfectly
happy to do so, though, if the resulting code is frozen to disk so I didn't
pay it the next time.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
internals for this. Figure out whether its a good or bad
thing based on the language merits, not the internals issues.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
rein.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
to change or extend it
much later.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 05:16 PM 8/4/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Indirect calls might not be a problem, depending on how much flow analysis
we can do in the optimizer. While that won't be much in the
on-the-fly-compile version (a 10s runtime with a 50s compile time's
At 01:30 AM 8/5/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 12:24:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:31 PM 8/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote:
My suggestion is: declare "eval $scalar" as a bad guy.
It's not just string eval. It's also do FILE and require.
Which you need
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of it isn't needed
3) C's preprocessor has a number of unpleasant flaws
4) Not everyone has a C preprocessor around to use
If we're going to do it, it should be in perl and perlish.
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
ent-based perl runtime, the select loop would be hidden
from the programmer. All I/O calls would be non-blocking and context
switching.
I meant select the perl construct, not select the low-level construct.
Dan
------
At 12:35 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS The language semantics of tie strongly impact the internals. tie() is
DS basically a declaration that the rules are completely different (and
DS unknown at compile time) for the tie
to the
non-op functions, it means they don't have to worry about writing code to
do localtime however we do it, they can just call our function.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
At 09:38 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
$foo = 12;
$bar = something();
$bar = $foo;
could work out to:
$foo = $bar = 12;
something();
If $foo is a lexical variable and it hasn't been aliased then
you might be able to do that optimization
to
be designed in.
I'm working on it.
:) I promised Kirrily that I'd race you in the RFC count...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
know where a few folks are). That pretty much covers
the whole day...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
im FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski
happening.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
on picking up the Unicode spec over lunch (didn't want to throw my
back out... ;))
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 06:59 PM 8/1/00 +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'd also like to see lexicals addressed by name through some sort of symbol
table-ish thing. Maybe:
$PAD{my_var}[-1]
would give a ref to the lexical my_var that exists one level of scope out
from the current
never, etc, etc.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
::fred does.
Well, in perl 5 it doesn't, but that doesn't say anything about perl 6... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
the variables fend for
themseles.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
checking is disabled in a no taint block. Whether we still set the
taint status on a scalar could depend on the -T switch, so data would still
be tainted in a no taint block.
Dan
--"it's like this"--
not.
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS I think I'd prefer to leave untainting to regexes.
DS What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically
scoped
DS pragma--"use taint"/"no taint". (We could do this by sticking in an
opcode
DS to
example, did a "$foo[2] = 'bar'" I don't
see any reason not to make $foo[2] have a value of 0. (With a warning
emitted by -w, of course)
Dan
------"it's like this"-
601 - 636 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
