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.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> The focus here, I think, is the following problem class:
>
> sub twenty_five() { 25 }# Optimized to inline
> sub foo() {
> print twenty_five; # Inlined
> &twenty_five := { 36 };
> print twenty_f
> Because there are some assertions that can lead the optimizer to make some
> fundamental assumptions, and if those assumptions get violated or
> redefined while you're in the middle of executing a function that makes
> use of those assumptions, well...
>
> Changing a function from pure to impure,
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 17:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The easy-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case; otherwise a lot
> of optimisation that should be possible isn't because the programmers are
> too inexperienced/lazy/confused to put the "closed" tags in.
The thinking at the last de
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-to-optimise case should be the easy-to-type case;
At 5:07 PM -0500 9/15/03, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:30:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
The focus here, I think, is the following problem class:
sub twenty_five() { 25 }# Optimized to inline
sub foo() {
print twenty_five; # Inlined
&t
At 3:30 PM -0600 9/15/03, Luke Palmer wrote:
The problem is we need to somehow un-optimize while we're running. That
is most likely a very very hard thing to do, so another solution is
probably needed.
It is, indeed, a very hard problem. It's solvable if you disallow
several classes of optimizati
Nicholas Clark writes:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
> > changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
> > regeneration. That's no big deal for code you h
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:19:22AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Changing a function from pure to impure, adding an overloaded operator, or
> changing the core structure of a class can all result in code that needs
> regeneration. That's no big deal for code you haven't executed yet, but if
> yo
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
> > disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
> > nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot,
> > throwaway optimizations ma
Poor guy, I just told him the same thing off-list. Well I come to think of
it,
I guess that makes me an old fogey too.
-Melvin
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/15/2003 11:39 AM
To: Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAI
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Brent Dax wrote:
> Piers Cawley:
> # Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could
> there
> # be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
> # through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
> # boiling t
Piers Cawley:
# Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could
there
# be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
# through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
# boiling them down into a summary?
Happy birthday, Piers. E
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
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 t
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There's a growing body of interesting work on what's essentially
>> disposable or partially-useful optimizations. Given the dynamic
>> nature of most of the languages we care about for parrot, throwaway
>> optimizations make a lot of sense--we can buil
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [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
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
>
[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
People get upset when CPAN authors add stuff t
[Recipients trimmed back to just the list, because it had gotten very
silly. When replying to someone who's on the list, there's no need to
copy them personally, too; they just end up with duplicates. :)]
On 2003-09-15 at 09:21:18, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Great. But will it also be possible to add
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.
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.
O
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
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
>> 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 t
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030914
Welcome to this week's Perl 6 Summary. And what better way could there
be of spending the morning of your 36th birthday than by reading
through a bunch of old messages in a couple of mailing lists and
boiling them down into a summary?
Piers Cawley writes:
> 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. But will
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alex Burr writes:
>
>> > But I confidently predict that no-one with write a useful
>> > partial evaluator for perl6. The language is simply too big.
>>
>> Then again, there are some very talented people wi
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 (unless I've missed
>> that?).
>
> Th
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. But will it also be possible to add method
30 matches
Mail list logo
