At 03:16 AM 3/27/2002 -0500, Michel J Lambert wrote:
Doh, sorry about that.
If it makes you feel any better (or worse), I was in the midst of writing
up the email for fixing the pushp bug you mentioned, when up pops '[PATCH]
Stack fix' in my email inbox, turning my local bug fix into a nice
At 09:47 AM 3/27/2002 +0200, Peter Gibbs wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
../parrot reverse.pbc string.c
file prints out pre-reverse call
recurse depth 0
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
This seems to caused by a nice timing problem - the
Melvin Smith:
Simon is on vacation and may or may
not be doing anything with assembler, keyed aggregate, etc.
I'm not on vacation yet. :) I'm not doing any more work on the assembler, but
I'm leaving it to Jeff to decide whether or not to apply it. I think
packfile.c will need updating when/if
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 13:19, Larry Wall wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
: Ok, so am I to take it that you could say:
:
: FOO: for x {
: BAR: for y {
: print $FOO::_;
: }
: }
Er, I don't think so.
: Or is OUTER a special-case label?
It's a special case like MY::, and
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 16:26, Michel J Lambert wrote:
An example of where variable capture is needed is:
macro println ($a) {
return EOF;
print $a;
print \n;
EOF
}
for my $b (1..100) {
println $b;
}
Ok, I don't get it. I'm willing to concede that I'm dense, but I need to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:55:59AM -0500, Michel J Lambert wrote:
Attached is a patch to implement computed-goto on gcc, taken from the
original post by Daniel Grunblatt:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06255.html
The patch is slightly broken, core_cg_ops.h in interpreter.c versus
core_ops_cg.h
Aaron Sherman writes:
: Here's an example syntax:
:
: FOO: for x {
: BAR: for y {
: my $foo_under FOO:= $_;
: print $_, $foo_under;
: }
: }
I think if we have to go through contortions to get at the outer topic
by name, it's better to just name the variable on the outer loop in the
Larry Wall writes:
I think if we have to go through contortions to get at the outer topic
by name, it's better to just name the variable on the outer loop in the
first place. Adding - $varname to the outer loop is safe, because it
doesn't change the semantics of topicality--now that we
At 10:27 AM -0500 3/27/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I *can* see some advantage in:
macro mygrep ($code is macroblock, *@list) {
my @newlist = ();
for @list {
push @newlist, $_ if $code.();
}
return @newlist;
}
@x = mygrep {/\S/} $fh.getlines();
Eric Roode writes:
: Larry Wall writes:
: I think if we have to go through contortions to get at the outer topic
: by name, it's better to just name the variable on the outer loop in the
: first place. Adding - $varname to the outer loop is safe, because it
: doesn't change the semantics
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Just out of curiosity, is there anything macros (in the Lisp sense)
: can do that source filters can't?
Avoid reparsing the language themselves?
Larry
I'm probably misunderstanding something, but I'm using keys for groups
in regular expressions (the uses are internal and so require no
assembler support), and I was getting a lot of seg faults. After
taking a look, I don't understand the reason for the extra level of
indirection to KEY_PAIRs. A
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:15:22AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
I'll send a followup patch that updates the .ops files (mainly rx.ops)
to define and use the working MAKE_KEY.
And here it is.
Index: core.ops
===
RCS file:
The patch is slightly broken, core_cg_ops.h in interpreter.c versus
core_ops_cg.h everywhere else.
I tried to do a global change to make it use core_ops_cg.h, following
prederef's example. I must have missed this one. (Still runs, just gives a
warning.)
It does take a while to build the
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:46:21PM -0500, Michel J Lambert wrote:
My methodology in creating this patch was to first apply Daniel's patch,
and then get it working. His patch had significant changes to an older
version of pbc2c.pl, which I tried to apply to the newest version. I then
proceeded
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 11:31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:27 AM -0500 3/27/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
macro mygrep ($code is macroblock, *@list) {
my newlist = ();
for list {
push newlist, $_ if $code.();
}
return newlist;
}
x = mygrep
An example of where variable capture is needed is:
macro println ($a) {
return EOF;
print $a;
print \n;
EOF
}
for my $b (1..100) {
println $b;
}
And, if we inline the sub, the only difference will be...?
Okay, a bad example, in that it could be better done in other
New syntax is 'qs', aka quote sub, which is similar to q, except that it
interpolates all of: ${..} {..} and %{..}
All subroutines which are interpolated, are interpolated as regular text,
with no bindings, so that they get lexically scoped in the code they are
returned as part of.
Then macros
First impression: Don't go there.
Longer answer:
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 16:29, Michel J Lambert wrote:
New syntax is 'qs', aka quote sub, which is similar to q, except that it
interpolates all of: ${..} {..} and %{..}
All subroutines which are interpolated, are interpolated as regular text,
Basically, one of the goals of Perl6 was to allow for you to implement any
perl construct, in perl. None of the operators were to use any special
features that could not be done by regular subroutines. And personally, I
don't see how we're going to be able to do all this lazy evaluation of
Thanks, done.
At 2:59 on 03/27/2002 EST, Michel J Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The introduction make quicktest made this missing .cvsignore more
apparent.
Mike Lambert
Michel J Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Macros could add something to Perl, but I don't see why having a macro
return a string instead of looking and acting like a subroutine would be
a bad thing. In fact, as I pointed out before, you can do almost all of
the scoping stuff that you
Attached are my revised files. pbc2c.pl uses Parrot::OpTrans::Compiled,
and this patch uses Parrot::OpTrans::CGoto. It also fixed the issues with
the last patch:
- removed inadvertant keyed commenting
- fixed #include name
- fixed pbc2c.pl
- should have unix line endings
Please let me know if
I added some tests which push larger numbers of stack frames- this
improves our coverage in register.c. However, one of the tests is failing
for me. Is this something I did wrong, or did I find a bug?
I'm getting weird output for the pushp and popp (deep) test.
--Josh
Here's the patch:
Attached patch fixes many of the warnings you see on MSVC level 4. The
ones listed below, this patch does *not* handle.
core.ops and rx.ops have some warnings about the use of MAKE_KEY, and the
non-use of the variables returned by MAKE_KEY. I believe Steve Fink's
patch fixes these.
io_win32.c
Mike pointed out that I was missing end opcodes in there, so I added
them and went ahead and committed this code to CVS. Currently test #7 is
failing, but I think it's a legitimate bug- if not, I apologize for
breaking the tinderbox ;)
--Josh
At 1:15 on 03/28/2002 EST, Josh Wilmes [EMAIL
I've applied portions of this patch. I omitted the parts which use the
byte type, which isn't going to work on all platforms.
--Josh
At 1:46 on 03/28/2002 EST, Michel J Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached patch fixes many of the warnings you see on MSVC level 4. The
ones listed
27 matches
Mail list logo
