Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Whipp wrote:
OK, I've assimilated all that (though it still feels wrong). I think you are
saying that of the following, the 4th is an error.
my @d = @x but Foo; # error: no values involved in this assignment
Correct. Although presumably this:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This may sound like a silly idea
It's been suggested previously.
Has anyone considered removing with the syntactic distinction between
numeric and string indexing -- that is, between array and hash lookup?
Yes. We rejected the idea.
In
This patch enables reading 12 byte long doubles on parrot with 8 byte
doubles and vv. Writing long doubles via imcc/packout works too.
The questions still remains: how portable are these formats?
Still borken: assemble.pl
leo
Robert Spier wrote:
Odd.
There's not enough information in the logs to figure out what's going
on. (And the code shouldn't have this kind of failure mode.)
If it keeps happening, please keep me in the loop.
Did it again. This time w/o error message - it looked totally sane.
From
Hi there,
didn't have time to reply earlier, had to do some research on Lua and had to
get approval for the project, so couldn't let you know earlier. sorry about
that.
But now, I have it (the approval, that is) so I'll be implementing a
compiler for Lua-parrot (most probably IMCC in between).
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, James Mastros wrote:
just define a new packfile section, SIGNATURE, that is defined to be a
cryptographic signature of all sections previous to it in the file.
I'm battling with this in another file format at the moment; if possible can
we please *not* have it sensitive to
Hi,
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
and was wondering if Parrot could provide a Mandator Access
Control mechanism (ala SE Linux/Flask).
When assembling Parrot, the assembler could either look in a
file or a
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:41:14AM +, Thomas Whateley wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
and was wondering if Parrot could provide a Mandator Access
Control mechanism (ala SE Linux/Flask).
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #20584]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=20584
This is a first try to solve the packfile wordsize issues.
Could people with 64
ECMAscript already tried this.
Bad idea.
If your hash keys happen to look like large numbers (e.g. you
have 7-digit product codes) as soon as you store one of them, it says:
Oh, this looks like a number, so we'll store it like an array and
happily creates a million empty array entries for you.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:41:14AM +, Thomas Whateley wrote:
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
[snip]
block to audit and be certain of what a module/program could
do to my system.
As author of
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:11:39PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:41:14AM +, Thomas Whateley wrote:
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
[snip]
block to audit and be certain
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:04:43AM -0500, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:11:39PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
What happens when you link in some module that's written natively?
Basically, my conclusion was that this was, unfortunately, still
Hrm, maybe I just
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
and was wondering if Parrot could provide a Mandator Access
Control mechanism (ala SE Linux/Flask).
I think that this is a great idea.
When assembling Parrot, the assembler
Pardon my ignorance on the whole issue but I'm just a lurker trying to
understand enough to help out. =)
I know security on parrot like this would be difficult, and this thread
is specifically about securing PASM, but what about something like
FreeBSD's 'jail' command built in? That way, even
Sure. But then is this:
$ref[$key]
an array or hash look-up???
Decided at runtime?
Doesn't help if $ref refers to a type that has both hash-like and array-like
accessability. And that will be very common, since all Perl 6 regexes return
such objects.
Damian
At 8:46 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any particular variable
At 8:47 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. But then is this:
$ref[$key]
an array or hash look-up???
Decided at runtime?
How? People use strings as array indices and ints/floats as hash
indices, and count on autoconversion to Make It
Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any particular variable pointing to it). This lets us
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:47 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. But then is this:
$ref[$key]
an array or hash look-up???
Decided at runtime?
How? People use strings as array indices and ints/floats as
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 8:46 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if they're
wrong.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
@a[3] # undef
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if
they're wrong.
I think some of this is incorrect which, because Damian thinks
otherwise, will need some hashing out
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[3] # undef (warning: index out-of-bounds)
Or a real 0, since you said @a can only return integers.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
@a[ Inf ] # undef (warning: can't use Inf as array index)
I'd throw an exception here.
@a[-4]# undef (warning: index out-of-bounds)
@a[-Inf] # undef (warning:
There has been discussion of allowing a default value for array cells
-- that is, one aside from Cundef or whatever the type-specific
default is. Questions, in order of increased evilness:
1) What's the final decided syntax? Two possibilities:
my @a is Array( default = 'foo' ); #
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:39:33AM -0600, Joseph Guhlin wrote:
Pardon my ignorance on the whole issue but I'm just a lurker trying to
understand enough to help out. =)
I know security on parrot like this would be difficult, and this thread
is specifically about securing PASM, but what about
Christopher Armstrong:
# One other thing to think about is resource limits. It'd be nice to not
# require `ulimit' or whatever system-specific resource limitation
# mechanism, but rather rely on the parrot interpreter to
# baby-sit. Also, it'd make catching these resource-limit violations
# much
Matthew Byng-Maddick:
# It seems to me that the linking with native code is going to
# end up being one that most people switch on, because it will
# be necessary and/or useful in getting anything done.
Then make sure that link in native code isn't a permission--link in
native code library X
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:24:20AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Christopher Armstrong:
# One other thing to think about is resource limits. It'd be nice to not
# require `ulimit' or whatever system-specific resource limitation
# mechanism, but rather rely on the parrot interpreter to
# baby-sit.
If memory serves me right, James Michael DuPont wrote:
Bah. That's parrot -o foo.o foo.pmc isn't it?
And if we make C a parrot supported language we can even build parrot
with parrot?
Hmmm... bootstrapping
1. The gcc : I have %99 of the information about the function bodies of
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:15:41PM +, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:04:43AM -0500, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Hrm, maybe I just don't know what's going on, but I'm not sure why
this is a problem. Couldn't call out to native functions or perhaps
call out to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:39:33AM -0600, Joseph Guhlin wrote:
Pardon my ignorance on the whole issue but I'm just a lurker trying to
understand enough to help out. =)
I know security on parrot like this would be difficult, and this thread
is specifically about securing PASM, but what
Matthew == Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess what I'm saying is, sure, you can't stop a native
function (which was called from parrot code) from doing
whatever it wants, but you can still prevent the parrot code
from using that function in the first place
Brent == Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see why Parrot couldn't do much of this. It can
certainly audit allocations made through its own
memory-allocation system, and with only a little help from the
system it should be able to audit its processor usage as well
At 11:41 AM + 1/28/03, Thomas Whateley wrote:
Hi,
I've been thinking about how to run un-trusted code,
without having to audit every line, or use some sort of sandbox,
and was wondering if Parrot could provide a Mandator Access
Control mechanism (ala SE Linux/Flask).
Ah, I've been hoping
Hey, any Parrot hackers going to the Python convention at the end of
March? http://python.org/pycon/. Price will be $150-$200. I'm very
interested in meeting and discussing there :-)
--
Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery
Radix | Release Manager, Twisted
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
- 8/12 byte float issues are still the same - are these
formats really portable, or should we try to store
ASCII equivalents?
No?
? Because my knowledge here approaches zero, so I'm just aping information
back at you from google searches and scanning documents.
Last week I collected your data. This week I bring you pretty pictures:
http://www.astray.com/parrot/worldmap/
So London would seem a good place for a Parrot developer day, as would
California. I guess most people will be meeting up at Perl conferences
anyway.
What do people have in mind for
# New Ticket Created by Jonathan Sillito
# Please include the string: [perl #20592]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=20592
A description of each attachment:
1) coroutine.t (which should be put in
Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my @a is default(666);
print @a[2]; # prints 666
@a[4] = 1;
print @a[2]; # now prints undef :-(
[typo in third line corrected]
I don't understand your example. Can you explain it again, using words
of less than one
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:15:26AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
2) Assume the default value is a simple value, e.g. 'foo'.
my @a is Array( default = 'foo' );
@a[5] = 'bar';
@a[4]; # 'foo'
@a[5]; # 'bar'
@a[6]; # 'foo'
@a[-1];# 'bar'
Michael Lazzaro said:
There has been discussion of allowing a default value for array cells
-- that is, one aside from Cundef or whatever the type-specific
default is. Questions, in order of increased evilness:
1 and 2 seem fine to me.
2a) When a cell is explicitly re-undefined, does the
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) What's the final decided syntax? Two possibilities:
my @a is Array( default = 'foo' ); # attrib?
my @a is default('foo');# property?
Since we want arrays (lowercase) to support them, too, it should be a
property.
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if they're
wrong.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, undef. OTOH, deleting @a[1] would reset it to default.
Ere someone flames my for using a hash keyword in an array context:
s/deleting/absquatulating (e.g., via pop, shift, or splice)/
=Austin
Corrected in accordance with design team member feedback. These should
be solid, now. Thanks much for the responses.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
@a[3] # def (warning: index
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
Errno. That's rather the whole point of Cbut properties [*].
[*] People, we just *have* to find better names for these things!
I'd suggest we henceforth call them value properties (for Cbut)
and referent properties
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:30:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my int @a is Array( default = 5 );
@a[0] = undef;
This should cause a blip of some kind. If storing an explicit undef (as
opposed to undef but 0 or C$v = undef;
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 16:23, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Another question: If you ask for a value and get it, does the array
grow? Or does that happen only on assignment? (
Arrays (or hashes) don't grow on reading - never.
Never say never. You're correct for pure
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:14 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I'm not compelled by the counter-argument that this makes it
impossible to store an Cundef in an array with a default. Because
the whole point of an array having a default is to prevent those nasty
out-of-range Cundefs from
Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, undef. OTOH, deleting @a[1] would reset it to default.
Ere someone flames my for using a hash keyword in an array context:
s/deleting/absquatulating (e.g., via pop, shift, or splice)/
What's wrong with Cdelete in
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:01 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:30:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my int @a is Array( default = 5 );
@a[0] = undef;
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I'm not sure. I think I like the idea of
@a[0] = undef;
being a blip, but
undef @a[0];
resetting the value to the default.
That thought crossed my mind as well before I got to your message ...
Conceptually perl5 already has a distinction between assigning
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:07:17PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I think this debate is easier if you think of defaults as overriding and
auto-vivification method on a container.
Hmm. I don't :-)
I think it is easier if you think of defaults as overriding undef.
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 14:47,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:24:50AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:47 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
$ref[$key]
an array or hash look-up???
Decided at runtime?
How? People use strings as array indices and ints/floats as
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:06:19PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my @a is default(666);
print @a[2];# prints 666
@a[4] = 1;
print @a[2];# now prints undef :-(
[typo in third line corrected]
Aaron Sherman wrote:
auto-vivification will have to happen in some cases. e.g. if foo
requires a lvalue parameter. You can't know if an actual write will
happen, so you have to auto-vivify in order to pass a reference.
Or did I miss something there?
I think the idea is to use a special object
So ... with the discussion of what if i really wanted to put an undef in
there b/c it's not just that i haven't defined it but rather that it
really isn't defined. I KNOW it's not defined, and i'm now explicitly
saying it's undefined as opposed to before when i was implicitly
suggesting that i
On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 06:34, Piers Cawley wrote:
Compiling to Parrot
K Stol is looking for a final project for his Bachelor's degree and
would like to implement some language targeting Parrot and asked for
suggestions. Simon Wistow suggested PHP or Lua, Leon Brocard suggested
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
- 8/12 byte float issues are still the same - are these
formats really portable, or should we try to store
ASCII equivalents?
No?
? Because my knowledge here approaches zero, so I'm just aping
information back at you from google
attriel wrote:
So ... with the discussion of what if i really wanted to put an undef in
there b/c it's not just that i haven't defined it but rather that it
really isn't defined. I KNOW it's not defined, and i'm now explicitly
saying it's undefined as opposed to before when i was implicitly
63 matches
Mail list logo
