Re: I'll show you mine...
At 7:25 AM -0700 4/11/02, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Dan == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dan (Or maybe attributed string eval, like: Dan $foo = eval.Parrot EOP Dan set I0, 12 Dan sub I0, I0, 5 Dan EOP That would make more sense to me (for whatever that's worth) as $foo = Parrot.eval EOP; set I0, 12 sub I0, I0, 5 EOP Or am I missing something? I was thinking we'd be throwing an attribute on string eval telling it which parser rules to use (hence the .Parrot on the end, which is probably the wrong syntax) rather than having each set of parser rules be a separate class with an eval method. The syntax probably should've been eval is Parrot or something like that. -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: I'll show you mine...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote: [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ] I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all into silence? -- Piers It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite. -- Jane Austen?
Re: I'll show you mine...
At 3:03 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote: [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ] I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all into silence? Nah. You just can't hear the people running away screaming from there. ;-P -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: I'll show you mine...
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 10:03, Piers Cawley wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote: [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ] I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all into silence? On my clock, your original message arrived at 04:23, and your followup at 10:03. On the west coast of the US, that would be 01:23 to 07:03. That's probably the time you're least likely to get responses. Personally, I'm a little stunned. I wish I could load it into a debuggger ;-) Your idea at the end of regugitating the code back out as Parrot or Perl is just slightly stunning on its own. Still digesting
Re: I'll show you mine...
At 3:49 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote: Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your idea at the end of regugitating the code back out as Parrot or Perl is just slightly stunning on its own. I thought that was the easy bit. The compiler just (for appropriate values of 'just' of course) walks the syntax tree and uses an appropriate code generator to output appropriate source, which is what compilers have been doing since the year dot surely. We're going to have to put the asm keyword in for you, aren't we? :) (Or maybe attributed string eval, like: $foo = eval.Parrot EOP set I0, 12 sub I0, I0, 5 EOP Now that'd be interesting. Any parser module could be used. Hmmm) -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: I'll show you mine...
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of the next $(A,E)'s
my SchemeExpr $.value;
I haven't been keeping up in the back, I've a wedding bearing down on me.
What is the significance of the . in the declaration? I think I paid attention
enough to know a little about the unary dot but I'm still confused.
We are able to use .foo to mean self.foo, but I would assume foo would be
declared with my Foo $foo, not my Foo $.foo ?
method car { .value.key }
method cdr { .value.value }
Maybe its the C++ in me but why the use of the unary . inside methods
of the current class who's scope includes Cvalue already?
Isn't this like using Cthis in C++ from inside a non-static method?
I'll await your ruler on my knuckles, but overall; very impressed here.
-Melvin
Re: I'll show you mine...
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of the next $(A,E)'s
my SchemeExpr $.value;
I haven't been keeping up in the back, I've a wedding bearing down on me.
What is the significance of the . in the declaration?
class Class {
my $class_variable;
my $.instance_variable;
...
}
Easy eh?
I think I paid attention enough to know a little about the unary dot
but I'm still confused. We are able to use .foo to mean self.foo,
but I would assume foo would be declared with my Foo $foo, not my
Foo $.foo ?
method car { .value.key }
method cdr { .value.value }
Maybe its the C++ in me but why the use of the unary . inside methods
of the current class who's scope includes Cvalue already?
Consider
class SpecializedPair is SchemePair {
method value {...}
}
If you've written 'cdr' without the unary . it will attempt to
dispatch to a *subroutine* in the same context, ie
SchemePair::value. Even assuming that we play nice and allow confusion
between methods and subroutines (which I'm personally not keen on),
it's still apparent that, in the case of a SpecializedPair, car and
cdr would use the wrong value.
Isn't this like using Cthis in C++ from inside a non-static method?
Don't ask me. I know nothing about C++ -- Objective C (Looong ago),
Perl 5, Smalltalk and Ruby for me.
I'll await your ruler on my knuckles, but overall; very impressed
here.
Thanks. Wait for the next version though, I'm busy implementing
lexical scopes at the moment.
--
Piers
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite.
-- Jane Austen?
Re: I'll show you mine...
great idea :) I've just tried gnuCash program and think it is very cool (i've enjoyed to take first steps in double-entry accounting, i was always wondering what the hell is this :) )... http://www.ncsysadmin.org/july2001/ncsa-gnucash-talk.html#toc1 (very entertaining intro :) ) Meanwhile during browsing the docs i found that there was a way to extend the program but via Scheme (it had possiblity to be extended via perl at the begining but now not, for some their reason !!!). And so I wanted always to learn Prolog Lisp and so now I'm reading the Scheme online book : http://www.scheme.com/tspl2d/index.html It looks very cool, so go for it... i hope i will learn it :) = iVAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS. Before a couple of years I was using happily Windows and one my friend told me (arguing constantly ) do u know that Linux is very cool (no matter it used Win :)) .. so i got a book and started to learn Linux, i read about awk and started to write a report program (parsing IIS,proxy etc.. logs), meanwhile i constantly saw Perl examples in the same book, and also precaution that Perl is much more powerfull and hard to learn, so be prepared to spend alot of time. so one day i decided this awk is cute but what if i try Perl ? And on the third week my program much more featurefull was ready :) (up to this time i used only pascal basic) The good things always happen acidently .. So ... Thank you very much.
