At 8:54 AM -0500 1/21/03, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:41:47AM +, Simon Wistow wrote:
Speaking of games, it would be interesting to see Parrot be used in that
direction. A lot of games currently are pretty much developed along the
lines of 'custom scripting
At 6:10 PM +0100 1/21/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, I can be a bit slow, but I finally figured out what's going
on with IMCC and OS X. imclexer.c is autogenerated (duh!) and flex,
or whatever's being used to do it, spits out bad code. Could the
IMCC folks upgrade to
At 9:24 PM + 1/21/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hrm, interesting. Single symbol table for methods and attributes,
though that's not too surprising all things considered. That may make
interoperability interesting, but I was already expecting that to some
At 11:43 PM -0800 1/21/03, Paul Du Bois wrote:
The advantage of Lua (at least for my project, which is a game) is that it
is quite easy to embed, and quite easy to customize. The C API is small and
easily understandable (at the expense of being a little bit of a pain to
use), and the internals
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
# #!/usr/bin/perl -w
# my $i= 5;
# LAB:
#$i++;
#eval(goto LAB if ($i==6));
Ok. Having inter_cs call DO_OP just seems more involved than it has to be.
Yep.
How about a single self-contained
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling slightly deflated. Given the chance to re-design
Lisp
Damian Conway writes:
Not equivalent at all. C$foo~bar means append $foo to the argument list
of subroutine Cbar. Cfoo.bar means make C$foo the invocant for method
bar.
Curiously enough, the confusions I'm hearing over this issue are, to me, the
strongest argument yet for using
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Of course, _I'd_ even prefer using - and - as the 'piping' operators,
and having ~ or | for pointy sub, because then $a-foo and $a.foo
really _could_ be the same thing, 'cept for precedence. But
Smylers wrote:
Thom Boyer wrote:
The primary advantage, to my mind, in using Celsif, is that it
eliminates the dangling-else ambiguity -- so splitting it in half
removes almost ALL the value of even having an Celsif keyword.
Surely it's the compulsory braces, even with a single statement,
On 01/21/2003 5:24 AM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jürgen Bömmels (via RT) wrote:
PS orig description again:
This patch is the beginning of an effort to make PackFile format
extendible. At the moment its combatible with the old bytecode
format.
Ok, to the details:
It appends a 4th segment behind the
I lost the original mail asking for suggestions, so there is no quoted
text here, but have you looked at Joy
(http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy.html). Looks to be quite
clean and simple. I haven't had the time to delve into it, but when I was
reminded of it on the Ruby list, I
This patch adds a new opcde for intersegment branches. I named it
branch_cs. This takes one $I param, which is the entry in the
fixuptable.
Thanks to Jason Gloudon for hinting me, how to handle this beast.
(s thread [perl #20315] [PATCH] eval - inter code segment branches)
The fixuptable may hold
James Mastros wrote:
I'd be much happier seeing a packfile format that began with DIRECTORY,
and then had the other major sections located dynamicly.
Yep. The simple reason for keeping the old format still a while is
assemble.pl. When switching to imcc is done, there is no need to keep
the
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
$a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
$x = - ($y, $z) { ... }
The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
for pointy arrow means sub that will actually stick in my brain.
The question is, can I create a method on a class with a different scope than
the class itself has? Put another way, it seems like
module ArrayMath;
sub sum(Array $this){
$this.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
method Array::sum(;){
.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
(modulo syntax errors) then both
--- Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
I'm done with 'P'. That's it. Putative planners of programming
paradigms must proffer some prefix preferable to the pathetic
palimpsest that is 'P'!
As with operators, so with programming languages -- Unicode comes not a
moment too soon.
/s
At 4:53 PM +0100 1/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
This patch adds a new opcde for intersegment branches. I named it
branch_cs. This takes one $I param, which is the entry in the
fixuptable.
Thanks to Jason Gloudon for hinting me, how to handle this beast.
(s thread [perl #20315] [PATCH] eval -
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:53 PM +0100 1/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
This patch adds a new opcde for intersegment branches. I named it
branch_cs. This takes one $I param, which is the entry in the
fixuptable.
Thanks to Jason Gloudon for hinting me, how to handle this beast.
(s thread [perl
At 6:13 PM +0100 1/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:53 PM +0100 1/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
This patch adds a new opcde for intersegment branches. I named it
branch_cs. This takes one $I param, which is the entry in the
fixuptable.
Thanks to Jason Gloudon for hinting
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 6:13 PM +0100 1/22/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
IMHO plain jumps do not work:
Sure they do. They work as well as jumps within code, which also has a
not-insignificant potential for problems.
But the issues you raised are some of the reasons I'd prefer
inter-segment
All~
Regarding MM dispatch, I implemented a version of this for a class of mine
once. The version I have is in C++, and heavily uses templating to provide
compile time type checks where appropriate. Despite these differences,
however, I think that the system of caching methods and the system of
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And then we can replace the ~ with -:
for 1,2,3,4
- sub ($a, $b) { $a+$b }
- sub ($a) { $a**2 }
- { $^foo - 1 }
- print;
And this begs the question: what exactly does
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:38:23 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:52 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
But in a for loop:
for 1,2,3,4 { ... }
for 1,2,3,4 - ($a,$b) {...}
its cuteness works because the brain sees it as a piping operator (even
Michael Lazzaro writes:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
either direction:
$in - lex - parse - codify - optimize - $out; # L2R
$out - optimize - codify - parse - lex - $in; # R2L
It's clear, from looking at either of those,
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[... Massive elision ...]]
I'm thinking it would be a very good idea to unify Cfor and Cmap
in their argument style. I still think the distinction between
Cfor's void and Cmap's list context is a good one; i.e. don't
make them Ientire synonyms.
Since it looks like it's time to extend the packfile format and the
in-memory bytecode layout, this would be the time to start discussing
metadata. What sorts of metadata do people think are useful to have
in either the packfile (on disk) or in the bytecode (in memory).
Keep in mind that
Since face to face meetings are usually a lot more productive than
e-mail exchanges when working design things out, I figure that maybe
it'd be in our best interests to see if it's worth having a parrot
developer day somewhere, where some set of us can get together and
hash out things.
It's
Okay, since this has all come up, here's the scoop from a design perspective.
First, the branch opcodes (branch, bsr, and the conditionals) are all
meant for movement within a segment of bytecode. They are *not*
supposed to leave a segment. To do so was arguably a bad idea, now
it's officially
At 12:28 AM -0500 1/22/03, James Mastros wrote:
If we care about reading old packfiles on newer parrots,
Until we reach 1.0, we don't. As long as we make sure the magic
number in the header of the file is sufficient to make the execution
fail, that's fine for now.
--
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:57:28AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:37 PM -0500 1/14/03, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
But who knows, maybe it could be made modular enough (i.e., more
interface-oriented?) to allow the best of both worlds -- I'm far too
novice wrt Parrot to figure out what it'd
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
$a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
$x = - ($y, $z) { ... }
The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
for pointy arrow means
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
*Now*, what to do about the fantastic magic that pointy-sub provides?
The _spectacular_ win would be if we could just recognize an optional
parameter list as part of a block.
map @a : ($a,$b) {...} # params + closure = closure with params?
for @a : ($a,$b)
At 6:24 PM -0500 1/22/03, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
At 03:00 PM 1/22/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Okay, since this has all come up, here's the scoop from a design perspective.
First, the branch opcodes (branch, bsr, and the conditionals) are
all meant for movement within a segment of bytecode. They are
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030119
Summary time again, damn but those tuits are hard to round up. Guess,
what? perl6-internals comes first. 141 messages this week versus the
language list's 143.
Objects (again)
Objects were still very much on everyone's mind as the
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it looks like it's time to extend the packfile format and the
in-memory bytecode layout, this would be the time to start discussing
metadata. What sorts of metadata do people think are useful to have
in either the packfile (on disk) or in
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 19:46, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 01:57:28AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:37 PM -0500 1/14/03, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
But who knows, maybe it could be made modular enough (i.e., more
interface-oriented?) to allow the best of both
37 matches
Mail list logo
