Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Andy Wardley
Me wrote: Well, I could argue that c) already exists in the form of passing parameters in parens. This reminds me of the Law of Demeter. It specifies what your methods should and shouldn't be able to do if you want to build a bright, shiny system that never has bugs, maintains itself, turns

Re: Superpositions and laziness

2002-11-20 Thread Piers Cawley
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley wrote: [Speculations elided] Which is somewhat dependent on being able to do Cclass is $class. Which you can't do, since Cis is compile-time. So, how would one create a class which inherits from some other class when you don't know what

Re: Hmm...

2002-11-20 Thread Piers Cawley
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder what would happen if you had a junction of continuations. Producing something practical is left as an

Re: String concatentation operator

2002-11-20 Thread Martin D Kealey
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 18:10, Dave Whipp wrote: Why do we need to use preemptive threads? If Parrot is a VM, then surely the threading can be implemented at its level, or even higher. And what about *lower*? Like down among the CPUs? I want Perl to run 128 times faster on a 128 CPU machine...

Re: String concatentation operator

2002-11-20 Thread Mark Biggar
Martin D Kealey wrote: On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 18:10, Dave Whipp wrote: Why do we need to use preemptive threads? If Parrot is a VM, then surely the threading can be implemented at its level, or even higher. And what about *lower*? Like down among the CPUs? I want Perl to run 128 times faster

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:09:40PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote: : Larry wrote: : I'm trying to remember why it was that we didn't always make the first : argument of any sub the topic by default. I think it had to do with : the assumption that a bare block should not work with a copy of $_

RE: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Martin D Kealey
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 15:01, Brent Dax wrote: We need that capability if we're going to have lexically-scoped exports: Whilst it would be useful for pragmatic modules to access anything and everything in the current compilation scope, I submit that access to dynamic scope should (in general) be

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Austin Hastings
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... This might work now, presuming sub foo (;$_ = $=) (or whatever) is really a binding, and not an assignment. (That's another reason why //= is *wrong*--it implies assignment.) Umm, that's what it was supposed to do. IOW: sub($param //=

Re: Continuations

2002-11-20 Thread Damian Conway
Paul Johnson wrote: Is it illegal now to use quotes in qw()? Nope. Only as the very first character of a Paging Mr Cozens. ;-) It's just another instance of whitespace significance. print «\a b c»; Presumably without the backslash here too. Maybe. It depends on whether Larry

Re: String concatentation operator

2002-11-20 Thread Damian Conway
Dan Sugalski wrote: Whups, misunderstanding there. I realize that we need to throw an exception (or a junction of exception and not exception) if evaluating one of the junction members. The question is whether we should evaluate them all regardless and then figure it out at the end, and what

Re: Continuations elified

2002-11-20 Thread Damian Conway
Arcadi wrote: while $iter {...} # Iterate until $iter.each returns false? you mean Iterate until $iter.next returns false? Oops. Quite so. what is the difference between the Iterator and lazy array ? am I right that it is just interface : lazy array is an iterator object

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Luke Palmer
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:11:52 -0800 (PST) From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... This might work now, presuming sub foo (;$_ = $=) (or whatever) is really a binding, and not an assignment. (That's another reason why //=

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Me
$_ = 1; mumble { $_ = 2 }; print; will print 1 or 2? Least surprise, visually, is obviously 2. This would be true if bare blocks (even those passed as args) just pick up from the surrounding lexical context. And if that were true, mumble presumably could not do anything about this

Re: Coroutines, continuations, and iterators -- oh, my! (Was: Re: Continuations elified)

2002-11-20 Thread Damian Conway
Austin Hastings wrote: for each $dance: { ^ note colon 1- Why is the colon there? Is this some sub-tile syntactical new-ance that I missed in a prior message, or a new thing? It's the way we mark an indirect object in Perl 6. 2- Why is the colon necessary? Isn't the

Re: Superpositions and laziness

2002-11-20 Thread Damian Conway
Piers Cawley wrote: Cis is compile-time. So, how would one create a class which inherits from some other class when you don't know what said other class is until runtime? Use Perl5-ish classes, or an Ceval. Does this work: class { push @ISA, $class; ... } I

Re: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:20:07PM -0600, Me wrote: : $_ = 1; mumble { $_ = 2 }; print; : : will print 1 or 2? : : Least surprise, visually, is obviously 2. : : This would be true if bare blocks (even : those passed as args) just pick up from : the surrounding lexical context. And if :

RE: Superpositions and laziness

2002-11-20 Thread Brent Dax
Piers Cawley: # So, how would one create a class which inherits from some # other class when you don't know what said other class is # until runtime? AUTOLOAD! *ducks* --Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] @roles=map {Parrot $_} qw(embedding regexen Configure) If you want to propagate an

TERN-discuss mailing list finally available

2002-11-20 Thread david
The brazen heresy continues... http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/TERN-discuss

Re: TERN-discuss mailing list finally available

2002-11-20 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 9:07 PM -0600 11/20/02, david wrote: The brazen heresy continues... http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/TERN-discuss Perl 5, or perl 6? -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski

RE: Unifying invocant and topic naming syntax

2002-11-20 Thread Brent Dax
Martin D Kealey: # On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 15:01, Brent Dax wrote: # We need that capability if we're going to have lexically-scoped # exports: # # Whilst it would be useful for pragmatic modules to access # anything and everything in the current compilation scope, I # submit that access to

Re: TERN-discuss mailing list finally available

2002-11-20 Thread Joseph F. Ryan
david wrote: The brazen heresy continues... http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/TERN-discuss Are these people serious? What on earth is the point?

Re: String concatentation operator

2002-11-20 Thread Martin D Kealey
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 06:57, Mark Biggar wrote: Martin D Kealey wrote: I want Perl to run 128 times faster on a 128 CPU machine... now I know that's not entirely realistic, but it should be able to run at least say 60 times faster. Amdahl's law applies here: no amount of paralellism