Re: Parrot String Doc
You'll find some diagrams here which might help. http://www.vendian.org/parrot/wiki/bin/view.cgi/Main/ ParrotDiagramsString On 13 Jan 2004, at 22:06, Robert Eaglestone wrote: OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go. Here's the page I'm looking at: http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html And here are my questions. Or, rather, notes which have questions in them. * OK, I'm game, is 'String' a new thing that's been added to C in the last ten years? I can't find it defined anywhere; my brain must have gone to mush. * Does it help to mention that the source code for string functions is include/parrot/string.h and string.c? * Suppose I add some example code to the doc, creating a string and fooling around with it? Perhaps using code from a string test routine (hint, hint)? I'd do something like this, maybe: INTVAL encoding = where/what are the encoding values? /* is this legal? */ STRING* foo = string_make( pi, "foobar", 6, encoding, 0, 0 ); /* foo is "foobar" */ /* It's a pity we don't have a shorter constructor. */ STRING* bar = string_chopn( foo, 3 ); /* bar is "foo" */ /* It's also sort-of a pity we don't have this one. */ STRING* baz = string_chop( foo ); /* baz is "fo" */ * Finally, at the bottom of the doc, I see all these undocumented functions. I think I ought to document them. Any new stuff since this page was last edited? -Rob
Re: Parrot String Doc
Le Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:34:14PM +0100, le valeureux mongueur Stéphane Payrard a dit:
> Le Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:06:18PM -0600, le valeureux mongueur Robert Eaglestone a
> dit:
> > OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've
> > got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they
> > just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go.
> >
> > Here's the page I'm looking at:
> >
> > http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html
> >
> > And here are my questions. Or, rather, notes which have
> > questions in them.
> >
> >
> > * OK, I'm game, is 'String' a new thing that's been added to
> >C in the last ten years? I can't find it defined anywhere;
> >my brain must have gone to mush.
>
>
> , C are different names for a C parrot_string_t>.
I forgot to mention.
You will find the definitions in F.
typedef struct parrot_string_t String;
...
#define STRING struct parrot_string_t
etags or ctags (depending if you are an emacs or vi user) is your
friend. I use the following to avoid gathering definitions outside
the core of parrot.
etags `find -name '*.pmc' -o -name '*.c' -o -name '*.h' | grep -v languages/ | grep
-v icu/`
Strings are garbage collected. All garbage
> collected entities are accessible thru a pointer to a C pobj_t> that is an union discriminated by the member C.
>
> Relevant code in F:
>
> typedef union UnionVal {
> ...
> struct parrot_string_t * string_val;
> }
>
> typedef struct pobj_t {
> UnionVal u;
> Parrot_UInt flags;
> }
>
> typedef enum PObj_enum {
> ...
> PObj_is_string_FLAG = 1 << 8,
> }
>
>
> But this is mostly irrelevant to the string user that will use
> the API you document. If you care about internals, see more info
> about garbage collection in F.
>
>
> --
> stef
Re: Parrot String Doc
Stéphane Payrard wrote: Le Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:06:18PM -0600, le valeureux mongueur Robert Eaglestone a dit: OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go. Here's the page I'm looking at: http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html And here are my questions. Or, rather, notes which have questions in them. * OK, I'm game, is 'String' a new thing that's been added to C in the last ten years? I can't find it defined anywhere; my brain must have gone to mush. , C are different names for a C. Strings are garbage collected. All garbage collected entities are accessible thru a pointer to a C that is an union discriminated by the member C. I did notice that they refer to the same struct which is something I found confusing. I noticed them being used interchangeably in places and was wondering if the we should just be using just "STRING" as per instructions in the documentation and change all references of "String" to reflect this. Harry
Re: Parrot String Doc
Le Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:06:18PM -0600, le valeureux mongueur Robert Eaglestone a
dit:
> OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've
> got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they
> just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go.
>
> Here's the page I'm looking at:
>
> http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html
>
> And here are my questions. Or, rather, notes which have
> questions in them.
>
>
> * OK, I'm game, is 'String' a new thing that's been added to
>C in the last ten years? I can't find it defined anywhere;
>my brain must have gone to mush.
, C are different names for a C. Strings are garbage collected. All garbage
collected entities are accessible thru a pointer to a C that is an union discriminated by the member C.
Relevant code in F:
typedef union UnionVal {
...
struct parrot_string_t * string_val;
}
typedef struct pobj_t {
UnionVal u;
Parrot_UInt flags;
}
typedef enum PObj_enum {
...
PObj_is_string_FLAG = 1 << 8,
}
But this is mostly irrelevant to the string user that will use
the API you document. If you care about internals, see more info
about garbage collection in F.
--
stef
Parrot String Doc
OK, I'm looking at the Parrot String documentation, and I've got questions. It's not like the docs are a total mess, they just need some fleshing out. Yeah, that's it. So here I go. Here's the page I'm looking at: http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/strings.pod.html And here are my questions. Or, rather, notes which have questions in them. * OK, I'm game, is 'String' a new thing that's been added to C in the last ten years? I can't find it defined anywhere; my brain must have gone to mush. * Does it help to mention that the source code for string functions is include/parrot/string.h and string.c? * Suppose I add some example code to the doc, creating a string and fooling around with it? Perhaps using code from a string test routine (hint, hint)? I'd do something like this, maybe: INTVAL encoding = where/what are the encoding values? /* is this legal? */ STRING* foo = string_make( pi, "foobar", 6, encoding, 0, 0 ); /* foo is "foobar" */ /* It's a pity we don't have a shorter constructor. */ STRING* bar = string_chopn( foo, 3 ); /* bar is "foo" */ /* It's also sort-of a pity we don't have this one. */ STRING* baz = string_chop( foo ); /* baz is "fo" */ * Finally, at the bottom of the doc, I see all these undocumented functions. I think I ought to document them. Any new stuff since this page was last edited? -Rob
