parrot and perl 6
stories on slashdot, at 0, so if I don't actually have to do so,
well... so much the better usually. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x27;s like this-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
erate behaviour in the
register allocator. The biggest sub I can find off-hand is 69496
lines, from an original source language that stuffs about 400K of
source text into a single routine...
--
Dan
--it's like this-------
Da
d well be that I didn't read things carefully enough.
Maybe, but that's what I got out of it as well.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 6:21 AM -0700 7/6/04, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we need a Perl 6 pumpking,
Luke Palmer.
No fair volunteering other people, though I'd be happy to forward
*your* volunteering on to Allison... :-P
--
Dan
---
to our
esteemed, and mostly sane, Perl 6 manager-type person Allison Randal,
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good luck!
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
problems there, I'm sure. Patches, of course, are welcome.
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
> > > > > substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
> >
s a programmer, you *really* want to run with scissors then convert
your string to a binary byte buffer and go from there. At least then when
you poke out an eye you won't be nearly so surprised.
Dan
------&qu
tion, I think we'd rather not go there right now...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
dify the grammar. (Which won't be difficult)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
ong as it works" school of thought. The code is close to irrelevant,
it's the architecture and API of a black box and the system that
box exists in that's important.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
val. Wrappers will all be done with
chained PMCs, so we'll just remove the removed wrapper from the chain.
> What kind of speed hit am I looking at?
Should take no more than a week, on average. Two, tops.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:42 AM -0700 5/6/04, chromatic wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 11:24, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well... sort of, but only because you've defined that for perl 6
classes automatically do themselves--you've conflated inheritance and
interface. Which is fine, except that it falls down in t
At 11:03 AM -0700 5/6/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:52:45PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 10:44 AM -0700 5/6/04, chromatic wrote:
: >On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 10:39, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: >
: >> The simple case is:
: >>
: >> sub foo(X $i is rw)
C/Java/C#/C++
objects and classes. Or... you might not, which is fine too)
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
orphically as X, not just converted to X) ...
... or, it has to [convert]
... or it pitches a runtime type error.
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EM
"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ovide some sample code to
go with your question, and we'll just tell Dan to make it work. :-)
No problem.
Throwing an exception counts as working, right? :-P
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
other level? :)
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:51 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/20/04 10:42 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:50 AM -0400 4/20/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 7:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, no, we're still stuck at run-time validation of that. In the case
of methods you can't really do any
;t do
named parameters (because either it doesn't or it's not perl 6) since
in that case the named parameters need to degrade nicely (and in
place) to their values.
--
Dan
--"it's l
At 1:50 PM -0400 4/19/04, John Siracusa wrote:
On 4/19/04 1:41 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:14 PM -0400 4/19/04, John Siracusa wrote:
I know we are running out of special characters, but I really, really think
that required named parameters are a natural fit for many common APIs.
Well... maybe
classes that have parents
written in languages without named parameters. (Like, say, all the
rest...)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[
-"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
-
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ght or nine
would be 'useful', and only three would be knowingly used.
Irony is wasted on perl6-language.
And this is a new revelation?
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
d encodings don't go out of their way to help with that.
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
separation clear, though many of the
sets and encodings don't go out of their way to help with that.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[
teresting problem. Modules leave debris around which can
make it difficult to properly deal with, and allowing them to be
unloaded requires a fair amount of thought.
--
Dan
------"it's like this"
names with the :begin property on them, or something like that)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If so, it's a bug. We ought to go add
some tests to the test suite once we expose this bit of the engine.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:15 AM -0800 2/17/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:39:07AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 8:30 AM -0800 2/17/04, Larry Wall wrote:
: >So perhaps we need a different word than "does" to indicate that
: >you want to include the Dog interface without i
; to note that it brings in the
role from an external source.
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have tedd
ther than the whole thing.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 3:11 PM -0500 1/19/04, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I've not gotten into the technical bits yet. That's next, but rip
this apart first.
Whups, wrong list in the autocomplete. Just a hedge, citizen -- move along!
--
Dan
-
rot may either choose a
dormant interpreter (if there is one) or create a new interpreter in
the pool to run the subroutine.
When the sub is done, Parrot may either cache the created
interpreter or destroy it as it needs to, though in no case will
Parrot ever leave a pool with no interpreters at
library is implemented) I'm
definitely not ready to even beta this, let alone roll it out on the
floor.
Don't worry, when that happens I'll make a lot of noise. :)
--
Dan
------"it's like this"
And should stay off-list, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy
pose, but I'd not expect it to.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ter, in perl 6.2 or
something, once we see how things are going and how people are
dealing with it.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
;s a sticky note!"
metaphor dead. If I understand the changes proposed in properties as
part of the whole "shift to roles" thing they aren't anything like
sticky notes at all, as they dynamically subclass the object.
--
Dan
---
ly weigh in on this, I'd rather you not actually be
able to do this, at least not to start with. And definitely not the
anonymous version. Maybe for perl 6.2 or 6.4.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
> > To: Language List
> > Subject: RE: Control flow variables
> >
> >
ts.
> (Likewise, however, for scalar control structures.)
This shouldn't be a problem. If there's potential ambiguity then the
optimization can't be applied. Modulo optimizer bugs you'll be fine.
Dan
------
ething similar will do it. (Though we could add new syntax for it if
you really want... :-)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > > Luke Palmer:
> > > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> > Will be able to.
>
> I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finish
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Luke Palmer:
> > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
>
> Bah, should be able to!
Will be able to.
Dan
--"it'
7;ll see what we can do with you. :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
> But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
> some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn&#
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
> > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
>
>
> Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows
> for Tail Recursion Optimizati
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > eval($block) if defined $block;
>
> I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch
around the call.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> How can I conveniently pass an extra parameter to a historically binary
> operator?
If it's one of the 'base' binary operators (addition, subtraction, and
whatnot) you don't.
Dan
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Todd W. writes:
> > I have a question/request concerning perl6 object properties.
>
> Rather, attributes. Properties are out-of-band data attached to a
> particular object.
FWIW, "attribute" and "property" are two words that have a meaning that
shifts
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Todd W. wrote:
> I have a question/request concerning perl6 object properties.
>
> I've done some work with .NET and They have come up with a really slick way
> to handle object properties.
>
> A typical property definition in VB.NET looks like:
>
> Public Property descript
Hmm... for symmetry, I'm now thinking I ought to have called it
parrot-0.00.11.1.tar.gz.
And all we need now is a 0.0.11.2, with patches to allow four-element
version numbers...
--
Dan
--"it's like this"--
7;s not there,
though I think that it is)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Andy Wardley wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly say
> > "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this application"
> > at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> > application.
>
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ph. Marek wrote:
> > You can, of course, stop even potential optimization once the first "I can
> > change the rules" operation is found, but since even assignment can change
> > the rules that's where we are right now. We'd like to get better by
> > optimizing based on what w
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.
>
work in the face of code motion, reordering, or
simplification, unfortunately. :(
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
roublesome)
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
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
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
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
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
>
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 a
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
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> This is mostly just a gratuitous message so that Piers has something
> to talk about in the next summary ;-), but when's the next
> Apocalypse due out?
Well, I don't know if Leon (Hi Piers!) has better information than I do,
but the short answer
On 14 Aug 2003, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
> a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Sometime after perl 5's syntax and feat
At 1:02 PM -0700 8/5/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
Can I discriminate on parameter names using multi subs?
Nope. Named parameters don't participate in MMD.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"----
At 10:37 AM -0400 6/17/03, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:31:54PM -, Dan Sugalski wrote:
For methods, each object is ultimately responsible for deciding what to
do when a method is called. Since objects generally share a class-wide
vtable, the classes are mostly responsible
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Adam Turoff wrote:
> Damian just got finished his YAPC opening talk, and managed to allude
> to dispatching and autoloading.
>
> As it *appears* today, regular dispatching and multimethod dispatching
> are going to be wired into the langauge (as appropriate). Runtime
> disp
At 7:35 AM -0800 4/1/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11:09 AM -0800 3/31/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
>--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 8:13 PM +0200 3/31/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
>> >On Mon, Ma
At 11:09 AM -0800 3/31/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:13 PM +0200 3/31/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 07:45:30AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>>I've been thinking about closures, continuations, and corout
t--it's going with an OS-level
preemptive threading model.
No, this isn't negotiable.
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTE
things in the
apocalypses, can have a lot of impact, so if you have more than a yes
or no then there's a possibility.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
At 4:47 PM +0100 3/26/03, Robin Berjon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I think that the issue here isn't so much good perl support for XML
as it is good support for attributed DAGs, something which would be
of general good use for perl, since the ASTs the parser feeds to
the compiler will ultim
ML [insert verb here]!" bandwagon,
perhaps we'd be better served figuring out what would be useful
operations and support for/on DAGs and suchlike things?
--
Dan
--"it's like this&qu
ing* make INTERCAL cool? I think not! :-P
--
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:52 AM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
> >discussion/agreement of wh
aking
the concepts behind ML more accessible to folks used to procedural
languages. Darned good idea--I say start right away!
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
dwell on the Freudian aspects of all this...
Put down that cigar, Larry...
--
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
---"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:14 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:31:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, I'm not 100% sure we need it for rules. Simon's point is
well-taken, but on further reflection what we're doing is
subclassing the existing grammar and reinv
At 8:04 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:35:19PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'll nudge Larry to add it explicitly, but in general redefinitons
of code that you're in the middle of executing don't take effect
immediately, and it's not real
At 5:54 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
>> you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
>> rules in the middle of a regex that uses those
At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules.
This is precisely what a macro does.
Not once execution start
At 5:38 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:09:01AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At the time I run the regex, I can inline things. There's nothing
that prevents it. Yes, at compile time it's potentially an issue,
since things can be overridden late
At 10:41 AM -0600 3/19/03, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:09:01AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
By the time the regex is actually executed, it's fully specified. By
definition if nothing else--you aren't allowed to selectively
redefine rules in the middle of a
At 4:52 PM +0100 3/19/03, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:40:02AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
By compile-time interpolation. isn't so much a subroutine as
a macro. For this to work, if we had:
foo: \w+?
bar: [plugh]{2,5}
then what the regex engine *really* got to co
27;t quite work, and
coroutines could pull it off if we could pass data back into a
coroutine on reinvocation, but...
We do, after all, want this fast, right?
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
re old, it might be faster now.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
1 - 100 of 799 matches
Mail list logo
