[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
PAR doesn't compile or precompile to bytecode, it packages, temp-expands,
and runs.
It *could* do this, but loading bytecode in Perl 5 is slower than loading
and compiling source, so there's not really much point. What's so magic
about bytecode, anyway?
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:47:29AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: Honestly I don't see the point why all normal array usage should be
: slowed down just for the sake of some rare usage patterns.
Does it have to? Couldn't it have a different vtable? (Which
As it stands, though, perl6-internals isn't about perl, but Parrot ...
so of the two lists, language is arguably more appropriate...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:37:04 -0400, Matt Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may be completely off base here, but I think this whole discussion
would be better
On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 17:59, John Siracusa wrote:
Actually, the other day I was thinking about how I tend to create any useful
perl program that I plan to distribute in the form of a big, monolithic
script. Take the distribution out of the equation and I'd write a series of
generic modules,
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-09-03
Another week, a free weekend, and still I haven't started writing the
summary until Monday. Still, I don't actually start at college 'til next
week, so that's all right then.
We start with perl6-internals.
Compile op with return
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:48:59 +, Herbert Snorrason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it stands, though, perl6-internals isn't about perl, but Parrot ...
so of the two lists, language is arguably more appropriate...
perl6-internals is about perl the implementation (which is parrot).
perl6-language
On 9/6/04 3:48 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
PAR doesn't compile or precompile to bytecode, it packages, temp-expands,
and runs.
It *could* do this, but loading bytecode in Perl 5 is slower than loading
and compiling source, so there's not really much
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:44:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Finally, platform independent execution of any packaged or precompiled
single file will *require* cooperation (core support) from the perl
executable itself. PAR is neat, but it doesn't even match up that well with
JAR, which
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:40:24AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
3. The single-file, platform independent, non-source executable (P6exe).
This is bytecode or some other platform neutral representation of the SDoF.
I just don't see how to do this at all without core support. (Well, I
suppose it
On 9/6/04 12:13 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:44:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Finally, platform independent execution of any packaged or precompiled
single file will *require* cooperation (core support) from the perl
executable itself. PAR is neat, but it doesn't
On 9/6/04 12:21 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I think packaging has the same characteristics. But unlike CPAN, packaging
does require some minimum amount of core support to meet what I consider to
be the minimum standard of elegance.
I think that this is true. I'm not sure what the minimal list
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 12:28:16PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Hm, well, features of the perl6 executable itself aren't really fodder for
the parrot lists (are they?)...although I forget where they've been
discussed in the past. Anyway, the long-suffering internals guys are still
hashing out
(not on the list, please Cc me in replies.)
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 08:49:20PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
PAR doesn't compile or precompile to bytecode, it packages, temp-expands,
and runs. It's closest to item #2 in my feature list, but it's something
very different than compiling down to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 12:17:57PM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
Another example to clarify what I am getting at:
Role Log2File [: $filename] { method do_the_logging {...}; ... }
Role Log2Email [: $address ] { method do_the_logging {...}; ... }
Role Log2Tk[: $widget ] { method
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
Don't you think it's preferable to temp-expanding and compiling at runtime?
Not if it's slower, no. The choice was made not to go with bytecode because
of a deficiency in Perl. If that deficiency wasn't there, then sure, go
with bytecode.
But you're
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 10:13:56AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: A different vtable implies some kind of a derived class. The question
: is, if an of shape or is shape already causes a new class of
: arrayish objects.
: The question probably is: how much of this class code is done directly
: by
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:47:29AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: Honestly I don't see the point why all normal array usage should be
: slowed down just for the sake of some rare usage patterns.
Another possibility is that .[] always forces the normal view of an
array as 0-based, and if you want
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Matt Diephouse wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that -1st should return the last element
in an array under the nth scheme? 1st should mean the first element.
-1st should mean the first element of the reversed array.
Don't say -1st is the first from last. If last is the
18 matches
Mail list logo
