> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
ML> usable two-sentence definition is:
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML> \(1,2,3)
ML> returns an array reference...
in perl5 it returns a list of refs ( \1, \2, \3 ). i dunno the perl6
semantics. it could be the same as [ 1, 2, 3 ] which means it is not a
Sorry, I was misremembering a threa
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:46:37 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
> > as
> > permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of sco
At 5:09 PM -0500 2/7/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan --
Who's for, C's or perl's? C's for doesn't need an opcode. Perl's
arguably might, but I think we'll be better off putting the count of
things into an I register and iterating through the list as an array.
Four words: Lazy Lists.
Well
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ML> Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
> ML> usable two-sentence definition is:
>
> ML> -- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
>
> "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
>> from
>> that pair of defintions.
ML> Is there any syntactic reason why both of the follow
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 2003-02-07 at 14:26:42, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > Not really, though. A list can be an lvalue, provided it is a list
> > of lvalues:
Note that to avoid the burden of writing an explicit slice, 'undef' is
considered as a lvalue in su
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
from
that pair of defintions.
Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be
allowed?
(1,2,3).pop
[1,2,3].pop
I don't know that one is
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
> usable two-sentence definition is:
>
> -- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
quibble: that's an "ordered bag", isn't it?
> "ML" == Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can
>> be as
>> permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
>> temporar
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
temporary). lists can't live beyond the current expression but arrays
can.
Along those l
Dan --
> Who's for, C's or perl's? C's for doesn't need an opcode. Perl's
> arguably might, but I think we'll be better off putting the count of
> things into an I register and iterating through the list as an array.
Four words: Lazy Lists.
Regards,
-- Gregor
> "MJR" == Mark J Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJR> A reference is fundamentally a pointer, but that doesn't help. My point
MJR> was that if you're talking about lists vs. arrays, you have at least
MJR> three different syntaxes to distinguish:
MJR> (1,2,3)
MJR>
At 1:52 AM -0800 2/5/03, David wrote:
Wow, Parrot has certainly made a lot of progress since I've last looked at it.
I see Leo's answered a bunch of this already, but since I'm digging
through my mail, I'll do it as well.
1. How do you handle variant (either string or numeric) data? Do you set
On 2003-02-07 at 12:18:21, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Although this may reasonably be regarded as a special case; you
> > certainly can't pop a list:
> >
> > (1,2,3).pop => error
>
> But could you do it the other way (function instead of method)?
> pop (1,2,3) => ?
Nope. At least, n
At 10:37 AM -0500 2/4/03, Phil Hassey wrote:
List,
I've been lurking here for about two months, after having read the summaries
for several months previous. I'm interested in parrot because 1. I want it
very badly for php / python / perl combinationability(?) 2. Just reading
about the project i
--- "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer
> the
> > > question "what's the difference between an array and a list in
> >
On 2003-02-07 at 14:26:42, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Not really, though. A list can be an lvalue, provided it is a list
> of lvalues:
>
> ($a, $b, $c) = 1,2,3;
Forgot the parens on the right side, there:
($a, $b, $c) = (1,2,3);
> But they certainly aren't lvalues:
>
> [$a,$
On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
> > question "what's the difference between an array and a list in
> > Perl6?"
>
> How's this?
>
>
> A list is a
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
> question "what's the difference between an array and a list in
> Perl6?"
>
> If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it
> would be helpful.
How's this?
=
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question "what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?"
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
MikeL
At 6:13 PM + 2/7/03, Graham Barr wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Dan Sugalski wrote:
It's a little more confusing that that. When I said only one foo
method, it was in contrast to attributes, where an attribute of a
particular name may appear in an object multiple times--s
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0800, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It's a little more confusing that that. When I said only one foo
> method, it was in contrast to attributes, where an attribute of a
> particular name may appear in an object multiple times--since
> attributes are class-private, eac
At 9:37 PM + 2/3/03, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:15:32PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) Method: Some sort of action that an object can do. Methods are
global and public--only one foo method for an object. Methods may be
inherited from parent classes, or redefined in a
Steve Fink wrote:
In tracking this down, I also noticed that imcc seems to assume that
you will do a saveall/restoreall pair around bsr calls.
I have now a partial fix for this committed. When imcc sees a bsr *and*
knows the label (all is in one compilation unit) *and* when there is no
save
Jason Gloudon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Yesterday night I hacked together a switched prederefed run loop. It's
running ~50% faster then fast_core but a lot slower then the CGoto based
loops.
The speedups are great.
I thougt that the switched
David wrote:
Leo wrote:
imcc (the assembler) generates spill code, using a PerlArray.
Ah, so that's what "spill code" means. Perhaps a definition of the term in the
document might be helpful.
$ grep spill docs/*.pod :)
leo
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:49:29AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Yesterday night I hacked together a switched prederefed run loop. It's
> running ~50% faster then fast_core but a lot slower then the CGoto based
> loops.
The speedups are great. The next question is how do you do use this in a
Yesterday night I hacked together a switched prederefed run loop. It's
running ~50% faster then fast_core but a lot slower then the CGoto based
loops.
The question is: Should I put it in? I thought, for compilers lacking
computed goto (ar there any?) it could be an alternative.
The disadvantage
Steve Fink wrote:
IMCC doesn't handle bsr with non-constant args. A test program would
be something like
L: $I0 = addr L
bsr $I0
It will complain that it can't fixup the label '$I0'.
Yep. That's missing. I'll hvae a look at it. (But you could invoke a
Sub, which is ok IIRC).
In tr
Melvin Smith wrote:
At 10:12 PM 2/6/2003 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Improvements welcome - and I'm a really bad C programmer, I won't do it.
*cough*
If you are a "bad" C programmer, what is your "good" language? :)
I don't have one. But IMHO I have a fair survey over the whole (except
31 matches
Mail list logo
