Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:19:26PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
Content-Description: Mail message body
The following patch adds a Parrot_nosegfault() function
to win32.c; after it is called, a segmentation fault will print
This process received a
At 12:54 AM -0500 2/10/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
I know globals are still on the todo, but what is the plan for the
operands of these opcodes? I see PMC examples, but will
we also have versions of these for the native int, string and number
Parrot types?
Nope, I'm not planning on that. We can add
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:19:26PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
Content-Description: Mail message body
The following patch adds a Parrot_nosegfault() function
to win32.c; after it is called, a segmentation fault will print
This process received
At 1:37 AM +0200 2/9/02, raptor wrote:
I was just reading this :
http://www.javalobby.com/clr.html
and a question raised to me. Will Parrot have some optimisation
(features) that will speed up closures continuation ?
Closures are a very fundamental thing in perl, and they've got to be
fast.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:08:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The one downside to having continuations is it makes optimizing away
variables, even temp ones, a little tough--on switch to any code that
might create a continuation we need to flush out from registers to a
holding area, and on
At 6:59 PM + 2/10/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:08:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The one downside to having continuations is it makes optimizing away
variables, even temp ones, a little tough--on switch to any code that
might create a continuation we need to
Jeff G wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
I've just committed some changes after which Parrot will not compile.
This is quite deliberate. Basically, I'm trying to get the keyed stuff
working the way we want, and that requires some painful changes to the
source. The upshot is:
All the
