standard asynchronous deferred-to-result syntax RFP

2005-07-14 Thread David Nicol
I have uploaded asynchronous::universal::ready and asynchronous::universal::set_callback to CPAN. They are both entirely trivial packages with a mess of documentation. The idea behind them is to support asynchonous frameworks in which the immediate result of passing away a message is a

Re: DBI v2 - Data In and Data Out

2005-07-14 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 17:23:28 -0600, John Williams wrote: The proposals so far have dealt mostly with the SQL itself, and supporting database-neutral layers on top of DBI. Personally, I don't mind writing the SQL myself, I rarely need to make a particular statement work on two databases

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Aankhen
On 7/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly. The problem is that there are too many viable alternatives, and half of everyone hates half of the alternatives. You will know I'm no longer a benevolent dictator when I start to enjoy watching people squirm every time I change my

Re: User-defined infix subs/methods?

2005-07-14 Thread Michele Dondi
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote: no, if I understood Larry correctly, you can of course write a nice grammar-modifying module, but other modules you use() still use Perl 6's standard grammar. E.g.: Ah, then of course I would have never expected things to be different at all.

Re: What do use and require evaluate to?

2005-07-14 Thread Piers Cawley
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:48:41PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote: : I propose to throw away the filesystem coupling, and map from a more : general name of the bit of code we are requiring to a more general : description of which instance of it we actually got.

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Aankhen skribis 2005-07-14 12:39 (+0530): Well, you've certainly got everyone flustered enough that they'll be overjoyed even if you pick the alternative they hated the most... :-) It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Carl Mäsak
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to test patience. If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation, let me just give up my baby to the other woman by saying: * It's

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Autrijus Tang
If this were a straw poll, I'd say... 1. Meaning of $_ .method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal. 2. Topicalization of $?SELF Neutral on this -- I can

Re: DBI v2 - The Plan and How You Can Help

2005-07-14 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On 7/14/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course it will be entirely possible to layer support for this sort of thing atop any DBI interface; Exactly my point. Please be so kind as to implement your ideas in a DBI extension. Time and community will prove whether you are right by using

Re: MML dispatch

2005-07-14 Thread Luke Palmer
Thanks for your very detailed explanation of your views on the Pure MMD scheme, Damian. I finally understand why you're opposed to it. I could never really buy your previous argument: Manhattan distance is better. Damian writes: Similarly, since the number of potential variants is the

more .method (was: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-07-05 through 2005-07-12)

2005-07-14 Thread John Williams
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Juerd wrote: Dave Whipp skribis 2005-07-13 8:44 (-0700): Within a method or submethod, C.method only works when C$_ =:= $?SELF. C.method is perfectly legal on *any* topic anywhere that $?SELF doesn't exist. Just to be clear, this includes any method/submethod

Re: What do use and require evaluate to?

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 11:09:40AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: : So long as there's some way of asking the garbage collector for everything in : the live set so you can grep through them I'm sure you're right. Because almost : everything is extensible at runtime a class is going to need some way

Re: User-defined infix subs/methods?

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:19:29AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : Within perl 5, there is an extremely easy way to write that, namely : coderef in @INC that provides line-based filtering: : : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-use-strict-with-pride/pride.pm : : Are we to discontinue use of

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Nathan Gray
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote: On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to test patience. If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation,

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400): Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent choice that will serve the community well. Would this

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:27:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : The way I am viewing the notion of current class for submethods : currently is: : : From inside another method or submethod: : : - a submethod should only be called from the class which defines it. This doesn't sound right to me.

Re: MML dispatch

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:27:53PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: : Can I present an alternative way of viewing them, which I don't think : contradicts with what I've understood of them so far from the : Apocalypses and Synopses documents. : : First a couple of definitions; : : A runtime class is a

Re: more .method (was: Perl 6 Summary for 2005-07-05 through 2005-07-12)

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:14:57PM -0600, John Williams wrote: : Actually I took his question to be: : : If I explicitly name my invocant in the method signature, does that give : the compiler enough assurance that I'm not going to use .method to mean : $?SELF.method, and it will allow me to

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Stevan Little
Larry, Thanks for the detailed reply. Just a few more questions and I think I can get this into the metamodel :) On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:27:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : The way I am viewing the notion of current class for submethods :

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say use dot; it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:31:07PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : A submethod is simply a method that says These : aren't the droids you're looking for if you call it via either SMD : or MMD dispatch and the first invocant isn't of the exact run-time : type of the lexical class. In other words,

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Stevan Little
Larry, Thanks much, this all makes sense. :) Thanks, Stevan On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:31:07PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : Now, the metamodel currently does not have MMD, and I think next : METHOD is not as relevant in SMD. So would it make

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Rick Delaney
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say If .method always

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say use dot; ICK!

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-14 13:39 (-0700): On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. Thus it never means $?SELF.foo without $_ being

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300): use dot; If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to have, we won't have any readability. The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of some danger. Agreed. I don't want to be using a language

Type::Class::Haskell does Role

2005-07-14 Thread Yuval Kogman
Haskell has this very nice consistency I'll diverge into perl terms... The 'Show' role provides consistent stringification semantics for any type that does the role. It can even 'derive' the role, getting a method autogenerated. The 'Ord' role provides semantics for ordered types. A typical

Optimization pipeline

2005-07-14 Thread Yuval Kogman
I'd like to document the optimization pipeline thing I brought up in the hackathon... The intent is to plan how to balance throughput with responsiveness for a language that has such a broad range of dynamic to static typing as Perl 6 will is. With such behavior the amount of optimization you

Re: MML dispatch

2005-07-14 Thread Damian Conway
Luke wrote: Thanks for your very detailed explanation of your views on the Pure MMD scheme, Damian. I finally understand why you're opposed to it. I could never really buy your previous argument: Manhattan distance is better. That was never my *argument*, merely my statement-of-position.

Re: Optimization pipeline

2005-07-14 Thread Dave Whipp
Yuval Kogman wrote: - optimizers stack on top of each other - the output of each one is executable - optimizers work in a coroutine, and are preemptable - optimizers are small - optimizers operate with a certain section of code in mind ... Optimizers

Re: Optimization pipeline

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
There may be some tie-in with STM here too, where a particular optimization doesn't commit if the optimization gives up in the middle, or is preempted before it gets done. But maybe it's all done with cooperative multitasking. (But maybe STM is how they cooperate...) Just a half-baked thought.

Re: Optimization pipeline

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote: : Yuval Kogman wrote: : : - optimizers stack on top of each other : - the output of each one is executable : - optimizers work in a coroutine, and are preemptable : - optimizers are small : - optimizers operate

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Nathan Gray
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:09:57AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the

Re: Type::Class::Haskell does Role

2005-07-14 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:38:22AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: As I see it == is the generic comparison, and 'eq' is == with coercing parameters (in Haskell it'd be eq :: (Show a) = a - a - Bool or so... Isn't that lovely?) There is a new generic comparison operator known as ~~. The dispatch

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote: Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400): Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent