Antonio Cuni wrote:
Simon Burton wrote:
I'd like to synchronize with Maciek and Antonio with regards
talking about rpython at EP this year. My talk comes right after
your rpython talk - i think we can perhaps share the burden (joy?)
of talking about rpython a bit.
Hi Simon,
I
Hi Richard,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:55:13PM -0700, Richard Emslie wrote:
bytecode that genllvm produces would then call the helper functions
instead of calling directly the external C API. Shouldn't be a
performance problem as llvm will inline the helpers agressively.
ok, that is
Hi Anton,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:07:27AM +0400, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
1. Use more or less portable runtime, which will unify such calls. For
example, one can use APR (HLVM, in fact, will use it)
2. Delegate stubs resolution to specialised version of lli. I think,
LLVM's itself OS
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 07:07:15PM -0700, Simon Burton wrote:
Do you think we could extend rffi to be able to
expose function calls to outside callers, so that eg.
we can make nifty cpython extension modules ?
It would be a simple matter to have a way to force genc to use specific
Hi Jacub!
2007/6/28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Author: jlg
Date: Thu Jun 28 15:49:30 2007
New Revision: 44599
Modified:
pypy/dist/pypy/lang/scheme/TODO.txt
pypy/dist/pypy/lang/scheme/object.py
pypy/dist/pypy/lang/scheme/test/test_parser.py
Log:
RPython direction for
On 6/28/07, Carl Friedrich Bolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jacub!
2007/6/28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Author: jlg
Date: Thu Jun 28 15:49:30 2007
New Revision: 44599
Modified:
pypy/dist/pypy/lang/scheme/TODO.txt
pypy/dist/pypy/lang/scheme/object.py
Jakub Gustak wrote:
I that case error messages from pylint:
E:142:add_lst.lambda: Using unavailable keyword 'lambda'
E:145:mul_lst.lambda: Using unavailable keyword 'lambda'
I would say that in this case pylint is wrong, though I agree than in
most cases lambda is used in a way that is not
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:03:34 +0200
Maciek Fijalkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think is enough or you was thinking about a deeper introduction?
I would extremely enjoy it, hence you give us some reason why we're
talking about this at all :) There are a bit of orthogonal issues
Hello.
Scheme interpreter is starting look like its going to do some serious
stuff in the near future, or maybe I am just too enthusiastic about
it.
What we have now:
- We can execute simple expressions like: (+ 1 2 1.3 -2)
Nested ones also works.
- (define var value) works with a given
