Howdy,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:29 AM, NotFound wrote:
>> As a middle-ground first step, howabout we break the non-necessary NCI
>> signatures into a dynlib in the repo. That way we still have them in
>> the repo if needed in the interim, we have a way to run tests on the
>> mechanism locally, a
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Whitworth
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
>> As an aside, methods on C-based PMCs use NCI thunks, so unless you can
>> shoehorn an API into vtables, you're no further ahead by trying to use
>> PMCs in the current system.
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM, NotFound wrote:
>> As a middle-ground first step, howabout we break the non-necessary NCI
>> signatures into a dynlib in the repo. That way we still have them in
>> the repo if needed in the interim, we have a way to run tests on the
>> mechanism locally, and we p
A better choice might be to rename $(PERLDOC) in the makefile to $(PERLDOC_EXE).
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jonathan Leto wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Should we set PERLDOC="" in the shell that the configure and build
> happen in, to prevent this?
>
> Thanks for reporting this, eggyknap++
>
> Duke
>
Howdy,
Should we set PERLDOC="" in the shell that the configure and build
happen in, to prevent this?
Thanks for reporting this, eggyknap++
Duke
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Joshua Tolley wrote:
> I found myself unable to build just now. The build process would show me a POD
> document,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Peter Lobsinger wrote:
> As an aside, methods on C-based PMCs use NCI thunks, so unless you can
> shoehorn an API into vtables, you're no further ahead by trying to use
> PMCs in the current system.
Is that still the case? I thought that the PCC refactors changed
> As a middle-ground first step, howabout we break the non-necessary NCI
> signatures into a dynlib in the repo. That way we still have them in
> the repo if needed in the interim, we have a way to run tests on the
> mechanism locally, and we prepare for the larger refactors that Peter
> is suggest
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Andrew Whitworth
wrote:
> Now that's quite an interesting idea, but limiting. We need some kind
> of way to construct a call frame in order to provide a thin wrapper
> around an external library. If we create a more "thick" wrapper
> instead, such as a PMC class t
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:27 AM, NotFound wrote:
> Be extended how? Generating and compiling C code is a big NO. That way
> NCI is not native at all. It kills the posibility of installing pir
> modules that use NCI in machines without a C compiler, forcing you to
> use some development system and
> The 2 major ways to extend parrot, dynpmcs and dynops, already need a
> C compiler.
Yes. So adding a supposed NCI that accomplish essentially the same
mission is pointless.
> But static signatures have a cost of requiring the interpreter to haul
> around a hash (~400 elements) of thunks that ar
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:27 AM, NotFound wrote:
>> * parrot core should only contain the minimum necessary to run and be
>> extended
>
> Be extended how? Generating and compiling C code is a big NO. That way
> NCI is not native at all. It kills the posibility of installing pir
> modules that use
I found myself unable to build just now. The build process would show me a POD
document, I'd exit the pager, and it would show me another. This happened two
or three times, and then the build failed complaining about a missing .pod
file. It turns out this was because I had the PERLDOC environment v
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 at 18:50, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid that I'm unlikely to have any opportunity to do anything
> > useful with this for quite a while, so go with whatever makes sense to
> > you.
>
> Ultimately we want cleanliness o
It sounds like a good idea to me. Create a ticket on Trac with
tickets, and we'll create a branch to do testing.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Nick Wellnhofer wrote:
> On 17.02.2010 01:26, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
>> Is this a rewrite of the StringIterator PMC?
>
> It's al
> * parrot core should only contain the minimum necessary to run and be extended
Be extended how? Generating and compiling C code is a big NO. That way
NCI is not native at all. It kills the posibility of installing pir
modules that use NCI in machines without a C compiler, forcing you to
use some
On 17.02.2010 01:26, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> Is this a rewrite of the StringIterator PMC?
It's also a rewrite of the StringIterator PMC. But that's the smaller
part of the patch. The bigger part lays the groundwork in src/string.
Nick
___
http://lists
16 matches
Mail list logo
