At 02:14 AM 9/24/2001 +0200, Samuele Pedroni wrote:
>A question: AFAIK
>Perl 6 will have optional type declarations
>and I imagine the statically typed registers
>in Parrot are there also to allow the
>compiler to exploit them.
Nope, that's not why they're there. The typed registers may be used for
them as a sort of cache, the way hardware registers are used now, but typed
variables will still be PMCs.
>Given
>my str $a="Perl" ; (is that valid Perl 6?)
>
>the computations with $a will be
>done using STRING registers?
Probably not, no.
>Does that mean that STRING
>operations should have
>some Perl special/specific behavior?
Doubt it. There aren't, to my knowledge, that many perl-specific string
behaviours. Most everything perl does with strings is the same thing you'd
do with them if you were writing Basic, or Fortran, or PostScript.
>I just wonder. Maybe it is not a problem
>because STRING x STRING ops
>in Perl have a quite vanilla semantics.
>Will mixed-type ops always use PMCs?
For code the perl compiler spits out? Mostly. Other language compilers
aren't obligated to do so, though if there are performance benefits its
certainly in their interest.
>*A long remark*
>It seems to me that I have
>some kind of understanding of how Parrot
>will work.
You might, but I'm unsure of that. (But that's as much because I don't have
as much understanding of how Parrot will work as I like)
>I'm also aware that I have been spreading some
>FUD about Python camp involvement ;),
>(Given some of Guido's abstract statements
>I think that I can't hurt more ;) ).
Please don't. Spreading FUD's never in anyone's best interest.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
