Since you're interested in the management of the Perl 6 project, I'll
let you in on some of it. Let's start with a step back into a bit of
history:
We started off with an intense RFC process. This produced many good
ideas, not-so-good ideas, and ideas with potential but desperately
needing polish.
On Oct-30, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
> # Please include the string: [perl #18166]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18166 >
>
>
> pdd09 mentions routines for blockin
> Can currying include the given topic? Can
> I do something like:
>
> $foo = &bar.assuming( _ => 0)
>
> or whatever the latest syntax is?
Oops. More clearly:
sub bar is given($foo) {
...
}
$foo = &bar.assuming( foo => 0 )
--
ralph
At 21:09 on 11/05/2002 GMT, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:45:46PM -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> > However, that still assumes we have atexit() everywhere. This appears to
> > not be true on SunOS at least- apparently it has on_exit, though.
>
> IIRC ANSI
> > My imagination suggests to me that in a
> > typical short perl 6 script
>
> That's some imagination you've got there! ;-)
:>
> My estimate (based on the -- not inconsiderable --
> code base of my own modules) is closer to 5%.
Your estimate of what others will do when
knocking out 10 line s
I have a rather fundamental proposal.
The A's and E's represent the framework and major decisions for Perl6,
but not every minor niggling issue and detail. As we keep seeing,
there is no shortage of things to pin down. We need to do that, and we
need to do it in the same rough order as the Ap
Luke Palmer wrote:
I just need a little clarification about yield().
The first point of clarification is that the subject is a little off.
C gives us *co-routines*, not *continuations*.
consider this sub:
sub iterate(@foo) {
yield for @foo;
undef;
}
(Where yield defaults to the t
Michael Lazzaro proposed:
It's up to Larry, and he knows where we're all coming from. Unless
anyone has any _new_ observations, I propose we pause the debate until a
decision is reached?
I second the motion!
Damian
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I'm not convinced. Compiling the computed goto core with any sort of
> optimisation turns on *really* hurts the machine. I think it's over a
> minute even a 733 MHz PIII, and it happily pages everything else out while
> it's doing it. :-(
Use the "-fno-gcse" option to gcc,
Scott Duff wrote:
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
rec
Buddha Buck wrote:
Examples:
# process @array, one element at a time
for @array -> $x { ... };
Yes.
# process @array, in pairs
for @array -> $x, $y { ... };
Yes.
# process all of @a, then all of @b, one element at a time
for @a, @b -> $x { ... };
Yes.
# process @a, then @b, in pai
Michael Lazzaro asked:
So how could we say "take 2 elements from @a, stepping 10 indices at a
time, plus one from @b"?
I think it's overreaching to try and fold this into C.
I'd suggest that hyperslicing @a within a C will probably
take care of that (presumably uncommon) case.
Damian
As one of the instigators of this thread, I submit that we've probably
argued about the Unicode stuff enough. The basic issues are now known,
and it's known that there's no general agreement on any of this stuff,
nor will there ever be. To wit:
-- Extended glyphs might be extremely useful in
one more data point from a person who lived, travelled and used computers
in a few countries (Romania, France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Canada, US,
Holland, Italy). paraphrasing:
rule 1: if it's not on my keyboard, it doesn't exist;
rune 2: if it's not on everybody's keyboard, it doesn't exist.
lon
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
As Buddha Buck suggested elsewhere, and as I have coded above,
I would imagine that this functionality would be mediated by pairs
and merged into a single C function. So that last example is just:
for zip(@a=>2,@b=>1) -> $x,$y,$z
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> > I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
> > quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
> > it.
> >
> > ... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
> > wil
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
~ - force to string context
~ ~= - string concat
ARG. When did this get chosen?
~ has to be absolutly the most difficult letter to type on the intire
keyboard along with ^ and ", because they are also used as a prefix to
make û, ü, õ,
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary "zip" operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C<|>, C<&>, and C<^> will be operator versions
of C, C, and C.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *@sources; $by = 1) {
if exi
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:45:46PM -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 18:57 on 11/04/2002 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > atexit is not an alternative, because we might have multiple
> > interpreters to clean up like in t/op/interp_2.
>
> So the issue here is that on_exit can
Richard Proctor wrote:
> I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
> quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
> it.
>
> ... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
> will work under UTF8 and Latin-1 and Windows ...
Peter Haworth wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Meaning that the list:
+^- force to numeric context, complement
~^- force to string context, complement
simply becomes:
^ - complement (type-specific)
Does this include booleans? I really like
Dan Kogai wrote:
> We already have source filters in perl5 and I'm pretty much sure
> someone will just invent yet another 'use operators => "ascii";' kind
> of stuff in perl6.
I think that's backwards to have operators being funny characters by
default but requiring explicit declaration to use w
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:13:45AM -0600, Me wrote:
> > relatively few subroutines need access
> > to the upscope topic.
>
> Well, this is a central issue. What are
> the real percentages going to be here?
> Just how often will one type the likes
> of
>
> -> is given($foo is topic) { ... }
>
Ken Fox wrote:
I've been assuming that a keyword will only have
meaning in contexts where the keyword is valid.
Given the shiny new top-down grammar system, there's
no requirement for keywords to be global. (Context
sensitive keywords fall out of Perl 6 grammars
naturally -- just the opposite of
ralph hypothesized:
My imagination suggests to me that in a
typical short perl 6 script, between 20%
and 50% of all sub defs would use the
upscope topic... ;>
That's some imagination you've got there! ;-)
My estimate (based on the -- not inconsiderable -- code base of
my own modules) is closer
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
recourse to use the "n
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Brent Dax wrote:
Can we add a way to explicitly free the memory associated with a buffer
without freeing the header? That seems like it could be useful in other
areas too (although I'm not quite sure where)
So mixing the 2 schemes is a PITA, IMHO.
did I write
Thanks, I've been hoping for someone to post that list. Taking it one
step further, we can assume that the only chars that can be used are
those which:
-- don't have an obvious meaning that needs to be reserved
-- appear decently on all platforms
-- are distinct and recognizable in the tiny fon
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 06:51 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Meaning that the list:
+^- force to numeric context, complement
~^- force to string context, complement
simply becomes:
^ - complement (type-specific)
this is not a description or definition of something. It is just set
of questions and confusions that I have when I encounter words like
"variable" , "name" , "alias", "assign" in perl . In the form of
explanation. But actually these are questions .
so , what follows is not the "how it actuall
I just need a little clarification about yield().
consider this sub:
sub iterate(@foo) {
yield for @foo;
undef;
}
(Where yield defaults to the topic) Presumably.
@a = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
while($_ = iterate @a) {
print
}
Will print "12345". Or is that
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(@a,@b,@c) -> $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\@:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $ma
Here's my current understanding of what's under discussion for for-loops:
Larry wants to eliminate the ; from the RHS of the ->, so the only thing
for needs to know about the RHS is the number and types of the
arguments. This puts the specification about how to generate those
arguments on the
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Of course, I also think I'm allowed to be a little inconsistent in
> > forcing things like ?op? on people. After all, there's gotta be
> > some advantage to being the Fearless Leader...
>
> Which kind of begs the question: Wh
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > But let's keep it
> > out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
> >
> > for @x ⥠@y ⥠@z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
> >
> > is to work, then
> >
> > @result = @x ⥠@y ⥠@z;
> >
>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> > Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> As long as packfile functions don't allocate memory (besides their
> >> own structures) it doesn't matter very much. Nethertheless, when
> >> doing changes I wo
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Meaning that the list:
>
>+^- force to numeric context, complement
>~^- force to string context, complement
>
> simply becomes:
>
>^ - complement (type-specific)
Does this include booleans? I really liked the i
Me wrote:
YAK for marking something.
I've been assuming that a keyword will only have
meaning in contexts where the keyword is valid.
Given the shiny new top-down grammar system, there's
no requirement for keywords to be global. (Context
sensitive keywords fall out of Perl 6 grammars
naturally
In perl.perl6.internals, you wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As long as packfile functions don't allocate memory (besides their
>> own structures) it doesn't matter very much. Nethertheless, when
>> doing changes I would include an interpreter param.
> I wonder if 'interpr
Jonathan Sillito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2 Nov 2002, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
> > Ok, I tested the patch (I tried to use this scratchpads for the scheme
> > compiler)
> > One thing I missed (or at least didn't find): How can I generate a new
> > scope? new_pad generates a new one one th
> relatively few subroutines need access
> to the upscope topic.
Well, this is a central issue. What are
the real percentages going to be here?
Just how often will one type the likes
of
-> is given($foo is topic) { ... }
rather than
-> $foo: { ... }
?
My imagination suggests to me tha
Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Phew! I'm slightly concerned at this list making Piers's job too easy,
> but have tried to minimize that effect by posting on a Monday (meaning
> that this mail is ineligible for inclusion in the next summary and is
> likely to be out of date by the time of th
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>
>> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>When there is no interpreter in PIO_eprint, vfprintf gets called.
>>>
>> As we are in the state of changing packfile.c (at least long term):
>> Should the packfile functions
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider the
Peter Gibbs wrote:
(The latter currently breaks recycling of bufferlike headers)
Fixed. Thanks again for this.
s. also "Questions about Px registers and memory usage"
leo
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:41 AM +0100 10/30/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jason Gloudon wrote:
... By default both compilers align stack variables at their natural
alignment, so PMC pointers would normally fall on 4 byte boundaries.
So, this "someone" are we (parrot itself) + language extensio
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 09:21:06PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
It turns out the optimization does make a difference for gcc at least, but for
a strange reason. It seems that without optimization gcc allocates a *lot*
more space on the stack for cg_core. I suspect this is
Peter Gibbs wrote:
What is the official position with respect to laundry services in the
Parrot memory allocation code?
I would strongly urge for calloc()ed memory as done now.
Some code assumes that the memory returned by Parrot_allocate
and its cousins will be pre-washed, while other code
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:09:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ JIT + cg_core ]
I'm not convinced. Compiling the computed goto core with any sort of
optimisation turns on *really* hurts the machine.
Here gcc 2.95.2 just fails (256 MB Mem, same swap)
I doubt t
Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 18:57 on 11/04/2002 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
atexit is not an alternative, because we might have multiple
interpreters to clean up like in t/op/interp_2.
So the issue here is that on_exit can take a parameter to be passed into
the handler func
On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 04:58 Asia/Tokyo, Larry Wall wrote:
(B> It would be really funny to use cent $B!q(B, pound $B!r(B, or yen (J\(B as a sigil,
(B> though...
(B
(BWhich 'yen' ? I believe you already know \ (U+005c -> REVERSE SOLIDUS)
(Bis prited as a yen figure in most of Japa
51 matches
Mail list logo
