On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across.
No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less
: entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like
: doing so to say that in all earnestness I'm quite sure no one took any
: offense out
Hi,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep. Also note that for is not a special magical construct in Perl
6, it's a simple subroutine (statement_control:for, with the
signature ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *code)). (Of course, it'll usually be
optimized.)
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
that runtime's statement_control:if is the same as the internal
optimized statement_control:if.
Which it definitely can't without some pragma.
I wonder if they
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
that runtime's statement_control:if is the same as the internal
optimized statement_control:if.
Which it definitely can't without some
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:51:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
: that runtime's statement_control:if is the same as the internal
: optimized statement_control:if.
:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:45:56AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Another issue in if optimization is whether the blocks in fact do
: anything blockish that have to be scoped to the block. This is a
: determination that Perl 5 makes when it's compiling blocks. It's
: basically an attribute that
On 11/21/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
that runtime's statement_control:if is the same as the internal
optimized
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:05:31PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This is very close to a proposal I made to the ruby-dev mailing list
: (which was Warnocked). I proposed a very basic engine that would work
: with the parser/lexer to determine what action to take instead of
: using the huge case
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:43:21AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Let's see, where did I put my stash of generic quotes?
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Yep. Also note that for is not a special magical construct in Perl 6,
it's a simple subroutine (statement_control:for, with the signature
([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *code)). (Of course, it'll usually be optimized.)
Example:
{
11 matches
Mail list logo
