On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Sam Vilain wrote:
Why on earth would you want to encourage such a short sighted
programming practise? The earth wobbles like a spinning top. In fact
It's hardly short sighted to want leap seconds to be abandoned (not in
Perl but world wide). The few people who _really_
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 22:24 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > That's my leaning--if I thought it might encourage the abandonment of
> : > civil leap seconds, I'd be glad to nail it to Jan 1, 2000, 00:00:00.0 UTC.
> : If we're going with TAI, can't we just nail it to the epoch it defines,
> : instead?
On 16 Aug 2005, at 18:14, Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 15:59:34 +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
I'm not sure what you're proposing here. A separate arena for
stuff you want to allocate and not be moved by the GC? How would
I tell the compiler?
You won't, the language glue is respo
On 2005-08-16 16:45, "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me, 1.e5 is not ambiguous. But maybe I've had too much dealing with
> floating point in a previous life.
1e5 is not ambiguous. 1.0e5 is not ambiguous, just overprecise. 1.e5 is
ambiguous.
> I'd find it hard defending a langu
Tim Bunce wrote:
And nobody mentioned JDBC as a potential model. Odd that.
I was sorely tempted to do so (and did mention it a few times in
my posts, along w/ ODBC and ADO.NET), but there are some things about
JDBC which rub me the wrong way (e.g., explicit set/get methods for every
data typ
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:36:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1_234; # surely 1234
> > 1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23
> >
> > 1._5; # call of method "_5" on 1?
> > 1._foo; # call of method "_
On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1_234; # surely 1234
> 1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23
>
> 1._5; # call of method "_5" on 1?
> 1._foo; # call of method "_foo" on 1?
>
> 1.e5; # 1.0 * 10**5?
> 1.efoo; # call of me
At 4:04 PM +0100 8/16/05, Tim Bunce wrote:
I was a little dissapointed that there wasn't greater focus on using
Perl6 features - especially as it would have helped kick-start my own
understanding of Perl6 topics that I expect to be significant (such as
Roles and Pairs, to pick two at random). Per
Hi,
1_234; # surely 1234
1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23
1._5; # call of method "_5" on 1?
1._foo; # call of method "_foo" on 1?
1.e5; # 1.0 * 10**5?
1.efoo; # call of method "efoo" on 1?
1.e_foo;# call of method "e_foo" on 1?
0xFF.de
On 8/16/05, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was a little dissapointed that there wasn't greater focus on using
> Perl6 features - especially as it would have helped kick-start my own
> understanding of Perl6 topics that I expect to be significant (such as
> Roles and Pairs, to pick two at
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:07:51AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Sure, except that you're not really inheriting from a role here.
> You're really inheriting from an anonymous class of the same name. :-)
Hmm, "Anonymous class with the name 'Array of Any'" sounds like
an oxymoron. Also consider:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:25:32PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> >In particular, the DBI must not mandate impossible levels of support from
> >the drivers. It will benefit you nothing if the DBI is immaculate and
> >wonderful and incredibly all-singing and all-dancing, but no-one can write
> >a d
The purpose of my project is to detect type-unsafe Perl 5. It's implemented
with Malcom Beattie's compiler back-end. Naturally, my type inference
cannot be sound due to the inherent ambiguities of Perl and things like
'eval "string";', but I think it's enough for many purposes.
Right now I'm usi
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:18:40PM -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
: More generally, the numbers are quite reasonable. For example, for about 30
: years on either side of the epoch you have resolution to at least .1
: microsecond.
And in 30 years we'll probably mostly be using 128 or 256-bit floaters...
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:00:14AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: If we go with class names being the undefined prototypical values,
: and if we assume that NaN is an "unthrown exception" variant of
: the undefined value for object types like Num, then we might even
: end up with Num == NaN, albeit wit
On 2005-08-16 12:39, "Brano Tich‡" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A related question:
> I think it was stated, that the time will be some floating-point number.
> Will its precision be predetermined or will it be system-dependent?
> (Or maybe the precision is no-issue -- it could be important in comp
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 15:59:34 +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2005, at 13:17, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're proposing here. A separate arena for
> stuff you want to allocate and not be moved by the GC? How would
> I tell the compiler?
You won't, the language glue is
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 03:48:22PM +0200, Daniel Brockman wrote:
: Exegesis 3 contains this snippet,
:
:my $inflation;
:print "Inflation rate: " and $inflation = +<>
:until $inflation != NaN;
:
: but the rule that +"hello" evaluates to NaN is "no longer"
: mentioned in S03, accord
I vote for double-precision floating-point. Since double precision
is good to 10^-15, that allows times to be specified to a precision
of about 3 microseconds for the next century, and to a precision of
30 microseconds for the next millennium. Anyone who wants more
precision than that is l
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:32:50 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> I don't think that making use of "use" and "no" would be shorter and
> far more Perlish. Also this allows us to switch off the
> modifications.
Uh, why didn't I think of that =)
> > This is getting me thinki
A related question:
I think it was stated, that the time will be some floating-point number.
Will its precision be predetermined or will it be system-dependent?
(Or maybe the precision is no-issue -- it could be important in comparisons,
but one can argue one should always specify the smallest
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:17:18 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> 2) Some way of being able to tell the garbage collector to ignore
>> the current contents of the heap for the purposes of GC. One
>> Pop-11 idiom was to do something like:
[...]
> We are trying to design a re
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Autrijus Tang wrote:
...This seems to be quite consistent with the rumoured US proposal to
abolish leap seconds by adding leap hours every 500 years or so:
Wow, a piece of US government policy I can actually support! Hell must be
a cold place right now.
-dave
/*=
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:37:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : But that's in contrast to your saying that the epoch would be December 31,
> : 1999 at 23:59:29.0 UTC. Or did I misread your earlier messages?
>
> Yes, you misread it. I was angling for 00:00:00.0 UTC. But it scarcely
> matters if
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, zowie wrote:
Hmmm... at least backwards leap-seconds are fixed. Handling leap-seconds for
all time requires net access or frequent software updates, but a single block
of 32 comparisons handles everything up to A.D. 2000.
Well, if you want accuracy you need to get that i
Hmmm... at least backwards leap-seconds are fixed. Handling leap-
seconds for all time requires net access or frequent software
updates, but a single block of 32 comparisons handles everything up
to A.D. 2000.
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Larry Wa
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:24:41AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
: On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >But the best part is that if we abandon UTC leap seconds for civil time,
: >we don't have to remember leap seconds going forward, only backward from
: >2000.
:
: So you want to take on the (
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:21:14PM -0400, Jasmine Pues wrote:
: Taimu? TAI- -mu.
:
: Sorry. Couldn't resist the pun. (Bad Japanese pun, but nonetheless.)
Well, hmm, yes, "taimu" means "time" in Japanese, but only because it's
borrowed... ☺
On the other hand, if you're willing to coin a new Japa
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
But the best part is that if we abandon UTC leap seconds for civil time,
we don't have to remember leap seconds going forward, only backward from
2000.
So you want to take on the (very irritating, I tell you) burden of leap
seconds going _backwards_ but
Taimu? TAI- -mu.
Sorry. Couldn't resist the pun. (Bad Japanese pun, but nonetheless.)
-Jasmine
2005/8/15, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 16:33 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : I would assume that you would choose time 0.0 = Jan 1, 2000 at 00:00:00.0
> > : TAI (December 3
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:40:05 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2005, at 02:13, David Formosa ((aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
>> After a very fruitful discussion I've rewritten my suggested GC API.
>> Comments please.
> [snip]
>
> I'm speaking from complete ignorance sinc
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:04:41PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:35:14AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> > > Counting the sigil quadriga as 4, what is the fifth element?
> > & @ $ % ::
> > In Perl5, :: is replaced b
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:35:14AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:32:01PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> > you wrote:
> > >Perl 6 in its unannotated form is also (mostly) a typeless languages,
> > >with only the five builtin types, much like Perl 5 is.
> >
> > Counting the sigil qua
Exegesis 3 contains this snippet,
my $inflation;
print "Inflation rate: " and $inflation = +<>
until $inflation != NaN;
but the rule that +"hello" evaluates to NaN is "no longer"
mentioned in S03, according to Autrijus.
He suggested I post here to get a ruling.
--
Daniel Brockman
34 matches
Mail list logo
