--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
keys and values in random order.
Hashes have no guarantee of ordering, and perl 5 (as Nick
demonstrated) delivers on that lack of guarantee.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 2:18 PM -0800 1/29/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:59 AM -0800 1/29/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
Now: Does this require a fake undef and a real undef?
WHO CARES?
Very good answer. Leave the details to me and the p6i folks. (Though
do please
behind a function rather than with syntax, but it should be doable...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
It Work.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
big(int|float|rat)s there's no real reason for
that to be a problem. If you want to use 10**100**100 as an array
index, you could just throw an awful lot of memory at us...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 5:07 PM -0500 1/28/03, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 16:34, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:17 PM -0500 1/28/03, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Now the question becomes, do you WANT them
for readability?
Given that Larry's answer has been a resounding yes all along,
I'm not sure
?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:02 AM -0800 1/24/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code
as
possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch
mechanism
would
never gets the darned thing designed. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
definitely cool, but IIRC it's
potentially a bit of a pain, since context is odd in spots.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
the default character set for everything, everywhere
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/16/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very
At 12:05 AM + 1/16/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
I was shooting for the good old days of sarcasm that people
/programmer-brain
standpoint is a separate issue. I think I'd rather dislike having to
maintain code that did it, but I can see a few good reasons to do it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 6:35 PM + 1/13/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert
like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
there are then source-interchange
problems. Dunno whether that'll be considered a problem, though. (I
don't see it as such)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
At 2:08 PM + 1/9/03, Peter Haworth wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:39:52 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:29 PM -0700 1/7/03, John Williams wrote:
Perhaps you could explain how the $0 object will work in your mind.
A5 assert that $0 is a object, and it behaves as an array and a hash
At 7:29 PM -0700 1/7/03, John Williams wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
2. There is a primitive array type that is promoted to an
objectified Array class when needed. This would be analogous
to the int/Int distinction for primitive numbers. This would be
visible to programmers
At 9:30 AM + 1/7/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Well, you'll certainly be able to use delegation to get in the way if
nothing else. Beyond that I'm not sure, but anything that's not based
on the parrot Object PMC (which we've not quite yet defined) won't
At 10:54 AM + 1/7/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
The short answer, I suppose, is that we're not recreating
Smalltalk--at least some small nod is being made towards Practicality.
I really don't follow your argument here.
What's impractical about being
At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory all men
are Socratese quote here)
I really hope you're wrong here Dan
At 1:19 PM -0800 1/3/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
I am taking the viewpoint that everything is in object.
Then you'll likely be somewhat surprised at times.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 8:43 PM + 1/5/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
I am taking the viewpoint that everything is in object.
Then you'll likely be somewhat surprised at times.
Can you elucidate?
(I admit to be very tempted to answer this Yes and leave
At 5:45 PM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:44:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:12 AM -0800 12/16/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
Why?
Yes, technically we
. (As long as we don't vet closer
to inventing Lisp...)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
. As would chopping sort/map/grep and
friends from the language entirely. One of the hallmarks of perl is
its richness, and I think losing that would be ill-advised.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 2:47 PM -0800 12/17/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:48:56AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Disagreed--we're getting steadily
.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:55 PM -0500 12/12/02, James Mastros wrote:
On 12/12/2002 5:24 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:17 PM -0800 12/12/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 01:41 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I might want to write code such as:
$remembered_id = $obj.id;
... [ time passes
, it shouldn't be cached any place, as
otherwise you'll find things going bang with some regularity.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 2:42 PM -0800 12/12/02, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:a05200f00ba1ebb73c6d2@[63.120.19.221]...
There'll definitely be memory address reuse. If .id returns the
current object's memory address, it shouldn't be cached any place, as
otherwise you'll
uncommon, and wasting punctuation on it doesn't seem worth it.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
hashes, no.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
At 10:16 PM -0500 12/9/02, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
It should be;
Doesn't mean it will be. And should is an awfully strong word
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
At 6:09 PM +1100 11/19/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
We're definitely going to need to nail the semantics down. Would
one thread throwing an exception require all the threads being
aborted, for example?
I would imagine so. You can't reasonably build a junction out of values
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 9:10 PM -0800 11/17/02, Dave Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The expensive part is the shared data. All the structures in an
interpreter are too large to act on atomically without any sort of
synchronization, so everything shared between interpreters needs to
have a mutex associated
(and, I think, will)
provide inexpensive threading, but only in cases where there's
minimal mutable data sharing.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
was a joke... :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
thing... :-P
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:46 PM +1100 11/17/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski pondered:
What does:
$foo = any(Bar::new, Baz::new, Xyzzy::new);
$foo.run;
do?
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C.run method on
each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results
At 7:39 AM +1100 11/18/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C.run
method on each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results
of the calls (which, in the void context is ignored, or maybe
optimized away).
I
At 1:00 PM +1100 11/18/02, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote:
* Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Nov 2002 12:56]:
[...]
Perl's standard threading behaviour's going to be
rather heavyweight, though.
Silly question time: Why is it going to be rather heavyweight?
(Not complaining or berating
. This may have some... interesting repercussions, as that has
some subtle and not so subtle ramifications in how the interpreter
needs to behave.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
instantiation call, like:
$foo = bar.instantiate(1, 2, 3);
or something. (Or not, as it is ugly)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
interesting as well. What does:
$foo = any(Bar::new, Baz::new, Xyzzy::new);
$foo.run;
do?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
--to be a strike against, there'd actually have to *be* a decent
C++ compiler...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
with.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 3:56 PM -0600 11/7/02, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run
issues. Which isn't an argument against,
merely something that must be kept in mind when considering one.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
not be distributed with Parrot for example... :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
, and none of
us like being choke points for progress.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
no circumstances can Larry be allowed to subscribe, or even
read, the lists. :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
At 11:39 PM + 11/6/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
2) Under no circumstances can Larry be allowed to subscribe, or even
read, the lists. :)
I thought that was so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning. :)
It's the blatantly obvious stuff that gets missed
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
type in perl 6. (At least so primitive that you can't hang
properties off it)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:02 AM -0800 10/29/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry
At 1:34 PM -0800 10/29/02, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 29/10/02 14:47 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:22 AM -0800 10/29/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
This is why I am nervous about introducing terms like eigenbunny, etc.
Oh, I dunno, I kind of like it. Of course, now my kids want
eigenbunny
hope so, at least.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
too...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 2:21 PM -0800 10/28/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While we're at it, maybe we can add in 0rMCM to allow roman numerals too...
OK, see, the sad thing is that I really have no idea whether you're
joking or not. That's how wiggy this thread has gotten.
I am joking--it's
At 12:37 AM +0200 10/29/02, Markus Laire wrote:
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110
At 10:53 AM -0700 10/21/02, Austin Hastings wrote:
Yeah, but emacs isn't written in any of those languages.
What, you're using emacs as an argument *for* something? :-P
And, FWIW, emacs is written in C. Granted a much macro-mutated
version of C, but C nonetheless.
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL
At 7:22 PM + 10/21/02, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote :
And, FWIW, emacs is written in C. Granted a much macro-mutated
version of C, but C nonetheless.
Just like Perl 5 ;-)
Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
make C look like Lisp
that.
--
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
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
will laugh at you :-)
will? Nah, we've been laughing for days. ;-P
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
exposed.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of the current decision, effort would be better placed in getting
that decision changed?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
to get his mail (probably not for a week) and to give everyone a
chance to mull over the issues?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
on the constant 12? :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
At 8:27 AM -0700 9/19/02, Brent Dax wrote:
Dan Sugalski:
# Sort of, yes.
#
# Basically the behaviour of hyper-operated operators is delegated via
^
Spending time in England lately? ;^)
Why, yes, actually. :-P But I've been using Pompous English Spelling for years
.
--
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
to be able generate fast code, but that works
best when you clearly express the semantics
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED
At 9:27 PM -0400 9/4/02, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:10 AM -0400 9/4/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, just to clarify, does that mean that multi-dispatch is (by definition)
a run-time thing, and overloading is (by def) a compile time thing?
No. They can be both compile time things
on the characteristics of the language.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 7:31 AM -0700 9/4/02, David Wheeler wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 06:58 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No. They can be both compile time things or runtime things,
depending on the characteristics of the language.
So if it's compile-time for a given language, how is it different
from
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of them.
PMCs can be loaded on demand. Make them good and there's no reason
they can't be in a standard SDK for parrot...
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
things
are going to go if you start.
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
At 6:03 PM -0400 9/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This will potentially get out of hand quickly
I don't think this is a case where out-of-hand-generalization is necessary.
I'm only saying that there could be a handy shorthand for a single very
common case
At 5:41 PM -0700 9/3/02, David Wheeler wrote:
On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 05:08 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
We call that concept multimethod dispatch. That's what you're asking for.
Dan, can you explain what multimethod dispatch is?
Damian can explain it better than I can, but it's
, will be character-set
specific. (And overridable, in case someone feels like making \b work
properly (FSVO properly) for asian data that doesn't use word
delimiters)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
At 4:01 PM +0100 8/29/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:52:42AM -0700, Steve Canfield wrote:
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I actually had something a bit more subversive
in mind, where the assignment operator for the
Date class did some magic the same way we do
this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
101 - 200 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
