Mike,
Was very happy to see your message. People don't often agree with
me. I'm not very agreeable.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Scott Walters wrote:
>
> > Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
> > storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating t
Scott Walters wrote:
> Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
> storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating these
> would not be a bad thing. The typical case still remains, that
> arrays will contained mixtures of all datatypes.
Yep, I agree. Thus, array.pmc wo
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 03:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > my @x is Hashed::ByValues = (1,2,3);
> > %h = (@x => 1);
> > @x[1] += 4;
>
> Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks
> of spooky action at a distance;
# New Ticket Created by "Tanton Gibbs"
# Please include the string: [perl #15574]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=15574 >
This patch implements the AGAIN pmc preprocessor command. AGAIN should be
used after
I can comment on a bit of this at least :)
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> It is not clear to me yet that there needs to be a 1-to-1 correlation
> from PMC's to upper level "classes".
There won't be. In general, there well be far fewer PMC classes than
upper-level classes.
Also, as
Mike,
Part of the beauty of PMCs is that you can have very compact
storage given a dedicated eg int array type. Generating these
would not be a bad thing. The typical case still remains, that
arrays will contained mixtures of all datatypes.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> This patch
"Tanton Gibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > TG> Does anyone know why I keep getting this:
> > TG> $ cvs diff > diff.out
> > TG> cvs server: failed to create lock directory for
> `/cvs/public/parrot/Parrot'
> > TG> (/cvs/public/parrot/Parrot/#cvs.lock): No such file or directory
> > TG> cvs ser
On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks
> > > of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x}
> > > =
On 25 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Personally I don't like the C< is Hashed::ByValues > because it smacks
> of spooky action at a distance; I much prefer my notion of C< %h{*@x}
> = 1>. And in Perl 6 I have the horrible feeling that C<< %h = (*@x =>
> 1) >> would expand to C<< %h = (1,2,
