On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 23:11:32 -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:21, Stevan Little wrote:
> >>Perl 6 will get implemented.
> >Oh, of that I have no doubt. Never did, and neither does Yuval (if I
> >may speak for him while he is asleep :). But all that we are trying to
> >do her
The table of smart matches in S4 has this:
...
Any Str string equality match if $_ eq $x
...
Any Rule pattern matchmatch if $_ ~~ /$x/
...
By my (and Damian's) interpretation of the table, this means
that "string" ~~ /rule/ would be inte
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 18:51:03 -0500, David K Storrs wrote:
> So, to bring it down to brass tacks: there are 5 big chunks (S15, S16, S18,
> S21, S23) that remain to be be written, a 6th (S08) that needs to be written
> but will
> probably be fairly short, and 5 (S28, S30-33) that need to
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:59:35 +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If Audrey is willing, I think a correct new direction for pugs is to
> > try and separate the parts even more - the prelude is a mess right
> > now, many of it's part are duplicated a
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:54:07PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:28:05PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : say $::;
:
: Or you can use a symbolic ref with a constant string:
:
: $::('x y');
:
: The compiler knows it's a constant. And it's even implemented in Pugs.
Hmm, e
On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:21, Stevan Little wrote:
Perl 6 will get implemented.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Never did, and neither does Yuval (if I
may speak for him while he is asleep :). But all that we are trying to
do here is shake out some cobwebs, a little spring cleaning if you
will.
Ex
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:26:52AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > $MY::{'x y'}
: > $MY:: # same thing
: > MY::<$x y> # same thing
:
: Er, aren't we obscuring the meaning of <> a little bit here? I would
: think that
On 2/7/06, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2006, at 15:31, Stevan Little wrote:
> >
> > Now I am not as involved in Parrot as I am in Pugs so I might be way
> > off base here, but from my point of view Parrot still has a long way
> > to go before it runs Perl 6 code. Part of t
On 2/7/06, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stevan~
>
> On 2/7/06, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, to be totally honest, I think only Larry truely understands
> > their usage, but to the best of my understanding they are intented to
> > serve a number of roles;
>
> I
Stevan~
On 2/7/06, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, to be totally honest, I think only Larry truely understands
> their usage, but to the best of my understanding they are intented to
> serve a number of roles;
I agree with you about that, which is part of what bothers me.
>
>
Perl 6 Summary for 2006-01-24 though 2006-02-07
All~
Welcome to another fortnight's summary. I would say more, but my throat
really hurts.
Perl 6 Language
Pugs's Minimum GHC
Darren Duncan proposed moving the minimum GHS requirement from 6.4.0 to
6.4.1. Based on the conver
On 2/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 February 2006 15:56, Stevan Little wrote:
>
> > The Pugs project and the Parrot project have had very different goals
> > actually (at least Pugs did from the early days). Pugs aimed to be
> > able to evaluate Perl 6 code, as a way of
On Feb 7, 2006, at 15:31, Stevan Little wrote:
Now I am not as involved in Parrot as I am in Pugs so I might be way
off base here, but from my point of view Parrot still has a long way
to go before it runs Perl 6 code. Part of that is because the bridge
between PIR/PMCs and Perl 6 just does not
On 2/8/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Audrey is willing, I think a correct new direction for pugs is to
> try and separate the parts even more - the prelude is a mess right
> now, many of it's part are duplicated across the backends, the
> standard library that is mashed into the
Late last year I implemented a few Perl 6 features in Perl 5.
A couple of things have emerged that may be relevant to the
Perl 6 design. Certainly they're things that I'm curious about.
I'll send the other one in a separate message to keep the
threads apart: this message is about 'say'.
The defini
On 2/7/06, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stevan~
>
> I am going to assume that you intended to reply to perl 6 language,
> and thus will include your post in its entirety in my response.
Yes, sorry... I missed the "reply to all" button on the gmail UI by a
few pixels I guess. Thank you
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 15:56, Stevan Little wrote:
> The Pugs project and the Parrot project have had very different goals
> actually (at least Pugs did from the early days). Pugs aimed to be
> able to evaluate Perl 6 code, as a way of testing the language
> features and design. It did not re
On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $MY::{'x y'}
> $MY:: # same thing
> MY::<$x y> # same thing
Er, aren't we obscuring the meaning of <> a little bit here? I would
think that the following two things would be equivalent:
$My::
$My::{'x','y'}
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:49:36PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: At 3:28 PM -0800 2/7/06, Larry Wall wrote:
: >say $::;
: >Larry
:
: My mistake. When I read Synopsis 2 I had interpreted the text more
: narrowly than what I was looking for. So for now I retract my
: request.
Well, it's not lik
On 2/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:17, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> > De-facto we have people running PIL on javascript.
> > It works more than parrot does.
>
> No, it works *differently* from Parrot, just as an LR parser works differently
> from an LR parser.
Stevan~
I am going to assume that you intended to reply to perl 6 language,
and thus will include your post in its entirety in my response.
On 2/7/06, Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Larry~
> >
> > On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROT
On Feb 7, 2006, at 6:51 PM, David K Storrs wrote:
I'd say that qualifies as light at the end of the tunnel indeed!
Forgot to say...all of this was was predicated on the idea that the
code can't really be written until the spec is done. Once the spec
is complete (even if not totally fro
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:28:05PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: say $::;
Or you can use a symbolic ref with a constant string:
$::('x y');
The compiler knows it's a constant. And it's even implemented in Pugs.
But my thinking on the ::<> form is that it derives from the symbol
table as hash
On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Parrot, on the other hand, has noticeably gained momentum the past
6 months or so. AFAICT, this is largely due to the fact that we're
close enough to finished that we can see the light at the end of
the tunnel, and because Pugs reminded us
At 3:28 PM -0800 2/7/06, Larry Wall wrote:
say $::;
Larry
My mistake. When I read Synopsis 2 I had interpreted the text more
narrowly than what I was looking for. So for now I retract my
request.
Pugs still doesn't implement what you indicated though, from my
testing, so I think I'll hav
On 2/7/06, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2006, at 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
>
> > Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
> > that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
> > lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of
say $::;
Larry
All,
I would like for there to be a simple and terse way for Perl 6
identifiers or symbols, including variable and subroutine and
identifier names, to be able to be composed of any characters
whatsoever, even whitespace, as it is possible to do in some other
languages like SQL, and as it is p
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:17, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> If we have more steps and clearer milestones for whatever is between
> parrot and the syntax/feature level design implementation will be
> easier.
Parrot has had such milestones for well over a year.
> De-facto we have people running PIL o
On Feb 7, 2006, at 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of the
implementation plan.
I understand your frustration. I even
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 14:02:54 -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
>
> > Right now the biggest problem in Perl 6 land is project management.
>
> I disagree, but even if it were true, I don't think the solution is to add
> more project management and
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> Right now the biggest problem in Perl 6 land is project management.
I disagree, but even if it were true, I don't think the solution is to add
more project management and design to partition the process into even more
subprojects of nebul
I should note, as integral said, that this direction is generally
being taken by pugs, now that PIR targetting is being worked out
(finally) - i just think it needs to be more explicit and in tune
with the @Larry.
Also, the way pugs is refactoring implies nothing on refactoring and
layering Perl 6
Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of the
implementation plan.
The required points of emphasis which I think are slipping out of
our fingers are: code
Larry~
On 2/7/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Indeed, and the modeling point of view is that $pipe is *also* just
> a representation of the Pipe. Neither Pipe nor $pipe is the thing
> itself. Most computer programs are about Something Else, so computer
> languages should be optimiz
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:41:02PM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: Larry~
:
: On 2/6/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > This is mostly motivated by linguistics rather than computer science,
: > insofar as types/classes/roles in natural language are normally
: > represented by generic object
On 2/6/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the basic answer to you question is, I think, yes. If Dog chooses
> to always return true for .defined, then (in Haskell terms) it's more
> like a Just type than a Maybe type. Perl 6's objects like to be Maybe
> types by default, but you can o
37 matches
Mail list logo
