Piers Cawley wrote:
The Continu(ation)ing Saga
Jonathan Sillito posted a longish meditation on Parrot's new
continuation passing calling conventions. He wondered if, now we have
continuation passing, we really needed the various register stacks that
were used in the old stack base
If memory serves me right, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It's possible to just go ahead and do it *all* at runtime, and have
> no compile time component at all--just a series of "newclass,
> addparent, addattribute" ops, assuming those are the op names we go
> with. Classes just get created at code init
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 21:47, Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
> And for the former... well, we'd be wasting half of the memory that's in
> our "32-bit" registers (since we'd still use 64 bits of storage for each
> of our registers, even though we're "using" only 32 bits of it), but
> there's no speed penal
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 16:34, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > *) Integer constants are limited to 32 bit signed integers because
> > they're inline.
>
> Yep. But this will cause problems with JIT/Prederef and multi threading,
> and its already causing problems inside JIT on architectures with only
> sma
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 15:12, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Our options, as I see them, are:
>
> 1) Make the I registers 64 bits
> 2) Make some way to gang together I registers to make 64 bit things
> 3) Have I registers switchable between 32 and 64 bit somehow
> 4) Have separate 32 and 64 bit I registers
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The issue is metadata. How do you declare a class' inheritance
hierarchy, its interfaces, its attributes, and its type? (At the very
least, there's probably more) I can see the following .
1) A class subclasses a single parent.
2) A class subclasses a single parent and adds
This should let parrot compile with the free command lind tools from Borland.
Cheers
--
Andrew The
Index: config/init/hints/mswin32.pl
===
RCS file: /cvs/public/parrot/config/init/hints/mswin32.pl,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
multi bar (Foo $self, int $i : ); # semicolon optional
I think you meant "colon optional". The semi-colon is, I think, a
syntax
error. You need the yada-yada-yada thing: "{...}".
Sig
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> multi bar (Foo $self, int $i : ); # semicolon optional
I think you meant "colon optional". The semi-colon is, I think, a syntax
error. You need the yada-yada-yada thing: "{...}".
But I agree with the main point you were wanting to make
A "use POSIX" statement is causing Devel::Cover to issue a warning.
I've seen it both on Linux (RH7.3/Perl 5.6.1) and Cygwin (Win2K/Perl
5.8.0). Has anyone investigated it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] coverage]$ cat foo.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use POSIX;
my $foo = shift;
if ($foo) {
print "$fo
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 15:23, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Its been a while since I've looked at parrot, so I did a "cvs update
> > -d", "perl Configure.pl", "make clean", "make" and build failed:
>
> $ make realclean
>
> should help. We don't have all depe
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, we can make objects and we can call methods on objects (at least
the interface is specified, if not actually implemented) but actually
building classes to make objects out of is still unspecified. So, time
to remedy that, after which I hope we can build at least a simpl
Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its been a while since I've looked at parrot, so I did a "cvs update
> -d", "perl Configure.pl", "make clean", "make" and build failed:
$ make realclean
should help. We don't have all dependencies in generated files sorted out
that far - sorry.
> It can
Well, we can make objects and we can call methods on objects (at
least the interface is specified, if not actually implemented) but
actually building classes to make objects out of is still
unspecified. So, time to remedy that, after which I hope we can build
at least a simple "ParrotObject" cl
Its been a while since I've looked at parrot, so I did a "cvs update
-d", "perl Configure.pl", "make clean", "make" and build failed:
$ make
gcc -o parrot -L/usr/local/lib test_main.o blib/lib/libparrot.a -lnsl
-ldl -lm -lpthread -lcrypt -lutil
blib/lib/libparrot.a(jit_cpu.o)(.text+0x2ce0): In f
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 09:19 AM, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
multi factorial (0) { 1 }
multi factorial ($n) { $n * factorial($n - 1) }
That's a bad example, as it's really not MMD. It's a partially
pre-memoized function inste
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 07:13 AM, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what Adam is after, this has
come up
before (I think I asked about value based dispatch a few months
back)
and I can't remember if t
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Multimethod dispatch?
Assuming I'm not misunderstanding what Adam is after, this has come up
before (I think I asked about value based dispatch a few months back)
and I can't remember if the decision was that MMD didn't exten
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Adam Turoff wrote:
> - roll-your-own inheritance mechanisms (see NEXT.pm)
On a related note, you might also want to take a look at CLOS (the Common
Lisp Object System) where it talks about method selection. They've got a
pretty clear and general model that describes every im
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:26:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Multimethod dispatch?
> Adam Turoff asked if multimethod dispatch (MMD) was really *the* Right
> Thing (it's definitely *a* Right Thing) and suggested that it would be
> more Perlish to allow the programmer to override th
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030608
It's another Monday, it's another summary and I need to get this
finished so I can starting getting the house in order before we head off
to Boca Raton and points north and west on the long road to Portland,
Oregon. Via Vermont. (I'm E
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:56:06AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Is this thing on? No messages since last Wednesday. Which admittedly
>> makes a summarizer's life a good deal easier...
>
> It looks like it is.
>
> However, your life may be easier "this
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:56:06AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Is this thing on? No messages since last Wednesday. Which admittedly
> makes a summarizer's life a good deal easier...
It looks like it is.
However, your life may be easier "this week" only, given that many
armed and dangerous minds
Is this thing on? No messages since last Wednesday. Which admittedly
makes a summarizer's life a good deal easier...
--
Piers
24 matches
Mail list logo
