[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
My only dream is that by this time next year we have a fully-
functional-people-can-use-it-in-production Perl6. It doesn't even
have to be 100% complete; I think just 85% would be enough if it were
the right 85%.
I've been using an 85%-complete
Simon Cozens writes:
I've been using an 85%-complete Perl 6 in production for the past five
years. It's called Perl 5. ;)
Unfortunately, although Perl 5 may be 85% of Perl 6, it is the 85% that has
been sliced up so many times that it's now looking like a sloppy Joe. The
trick with perl 6 is
Clinton Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{
my $a;
sub foo {
my $c;
$a=1;
}
sub main {
my $usedonce;
$a=15;
$usedonce=0;
foo();
}
}
This really looks
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:17:44 -0400, Gyan Kapur wrote
reconstituted cheeseburger
/me wonders if pitching Perl6 as a reconstituted cheeseburger is going to
sell it to the world. :-)
-Miko
Miko O'Sullivan
Programmer Analyst
Rescue Mission of Roanoke
Melvin Smith wrote:
Then if a language like Perl wants a funky scope type such as local (not
to be confused with IMCC .local) then it can implement them at a higher
level.
I'm not too sure, but it seems, that all named variable handling of an
interpreted HL finally ends up in either
At 12:57 PM -0400 6/26/03, David Robins wrote:
So... Configure.pl needs to be able to build a makefile that has
per-C-file flags, and those flags need to be overridable per-file at
configure time by the platform configuration module.
Does the makefile need to be a typical 'make' makefile or is
At 11:21 PM +0200 6/26/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:26 AM +0200 6/25/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the register backing stacks too?
If we're going to put limits in, yes.
If we want some secure
At 5:08 PM -0700 6/26/03, Brent Dax wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg:
# Concievably, we could then examine the exception, and maybe decide
that
# it was nonfatal, and resume execution from just after the place it was
# thrown from.
The problem with that is that some exceptions are unresumable. For
At 2:43 PM +0200 6/28/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
In the meantime interpreter-warns has moved to the context
structure and gets now restored for CPS subroutine calls.
But there is a slight problem (as well as with e.g. pad_stacks)
When we have:
warningson 1
newsub .Sub, .Continuation, _func,
At 3:08 PM +0200 6/28/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, now that we're using CPS, will there be a standard way of seeing
what the call stack is (for purposes of debugging/Ccaller/c.)? Is
it just a matter of looking in P0 and then P0's P0, and so on? Or
will
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Saturday 28 June 2003 02:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
When I merged Test::Simple with Test::More I left a Test-More tarball lying
around containing a Makefile.PL which simply died saying download
Test-Simple instead.
That's
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ update continuation PMC at call time ]
Here are some possibilities to achieve this:
- invokecc (this is slow)
- a new opcode e.g. Cupdatecc (update continuation ctx)
- toss invokecc's current functionality and use this opcode to update
the context and call the sub.
I like
Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ stack implementations ]
Well... we only really have three.
Control, User Pad have the same stack engine. The register backing
stacks and rxstack sum up to 5 more.
... The I/P/N/S stacks are all the
same, the only reason they've got different code is because the elements
# New Ticket Created by Clinton A. Pierce
# Please include the string: [perl #22854]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22854
This is either an oversight in the current implementation *or* its a bug. Or
At 11:19 PM +0200 6/29/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
... I'd also like to be able to manipulate the stacks in a context,
pushing things on them, changing values on them, and generally
messing about with the things, so I'm all for it.
Do you have some examples for a usage of such
Clarification:
running an invoke() at *any* time will cause all subsequent tracing to segfault. Thus
(pseudoPASM):
loadlib
dlfunc
invoke
trace 1
end
Will cause the segfault.
Original Message-
From: Clinton A. Pierce
This was a few days ago, but I just noticed Tim Bunce's comment about
the way other languages do it and thought of the way it is in another
language I know (one that a lot of people don't know), so I'm chiming
in briefly...
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about a pre- or user-
Miko O Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- I'm looking forward to more Pure Perl modules. I frankly admit
that I don't like coding in C. Every time I download a module that
has compiled C code I feel like I'm stuck in some place where I want
to play baseball and everybody else wants to
* Jonadab the Unsightly One ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [30 Jun 2003 12:37]:
[...]
The feature I'm most looking forward to in Perl6 is the improved
object model. One of my first languages was Inform [...], so I got
spoiled early in terms of what objects are supposed to be like.
Not the only one. And
19 matches
Mail list logo
