Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mind submitting a patch to put this in the languages/pirate
I'd appreciate that very much. Pie-thon, here we come ...
Speaking of adding new projects to languages, I have a partially complete
JVM-PIR translator done. It's
- Original Message -
From: Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: subroutines and python status
At 01:51 PM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
You mind submitting a
Hi,
I am writing a parrot code generator back-end to an interpreter for a
long-lost (some would say dead, but I prefer hibernating :-)
programming language: Comal (see http://www.josvisser.nl/opencomal).
Anyway, in the course of my code generation I have run into the
situation where I think I
Jerome Quelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- will objects introduce a speed overhead?
For sure, but not a big one. You can AFAIK obtain an integer index for
an attribute or method so its basically an array lookup.
- if I implement the Lahey space module as a regular module, how can I
declare
K Stol sent the following bits through the ether:
Actually, I named my little project pirate (s.
http://members.home.nl/joeijoei/parrot for this) already, but it's a bit of
a dead end already (although I learnt much of it), so I don't mind.
Quick, we need more parrot jokes...
I don't like
- Original Message -
From: Leon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: subroutines and python status
K Stol sent the following bits through the ether:
Actually, I named my little project pirate (s.
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Juergen Boemmels wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
PIO_eprintf
PIO_printf
for printing to stderr/stdout during 1st interpreter construction
destruction if something goes wrong. In all other cases we have an
valid
Juergen Boemmels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They should not fail more drastic than necessary. Only fail if its not
possible to report an error to the upper level.
Yep. That's right. To panic() is not necessary nost of the time.
bye
boe
leo
Kenneth A Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The .pcc_* directives are working for me in terms of implementing
function calls. I want to do something similar for iterator calls.
I've decided to implement iterators using coroutines.
I have applied it. The test program foo.pir is now a test in
Jos Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
1)Is there an efficient way to trap the failure of a find_lex?
Not yet. We have to clean up the internal_exception stuff first.
Cfind_lex could e.g. return a NULL in case of failure, and we could
then throw an exception in Fvar.ops at the
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One idea that occured to
At 11:04 PM +0200 7/31/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mind submitting a patch to put this in the languages/pirate
I'd appreciate that very much. Pie-thon, here we come ...
As would I. If you're willing, Michal, we can check it in and get you
CVS repository
Kenneth A Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inside the iterator, there are three differences compared to a function:
1) Every register in use needs to be saved to the user stack. (Anyone
have a clean way to do this?)
Its the same thing as calling a subroutine in the first place. Imcc has
to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:04 PM +0200 7/31/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mind submitting a patch to put this in the languages/pirate
I'd appreciate that very much. Pie-thon, here we come ...
As would I. If you're willing, Michal,
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
Joseph Ryan wrote:
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
[snip]
Hmm... If imcc is smart enough, (or perhaps I should say, when the
flow control is simple/clear enough) it should be able to see when a
value is pushed onto the stack, and later popped off,
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
[snip]
If someone's code emits something like:
save $P1
restore $P2
Then IMCC should be able to optimize that to:
$Ptemp = $P1
$P2 = $Ptemp
Actually, that (sometimes) should be able to be changed to:
$P2 = $P1
noop
or:
noop
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jerome Quelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- will objects introduce a speed overhead?
For sure, but not a big one. You can AFAIK obtain an integer index
for an attribute or method so its basically an array lookup.
Nice. So maybe I'll go for an object...
- if I
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
OK here it is.
Again the description for the record:
1) Initialization:
- normal core: build op_func_table with all opcode #4 [1]
- CG core: build ops_addr[] filled with this opcode
- prederef cores: build a list of (backward) branch instructions
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 04:28 , Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:43 +0200 7/30/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I have started looking at dynamic classes. I have currently
- new subdirectory /dynclasses
- small hack for classes/pmc2c.pl to consider this directory too
- dynclasses/foo.pmc,
Benjamin Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
OK here it is.
Again the description for the record:
1) Initialization:
- normal core: build op_func_table with all opcode #4 [1]
- CG core: build ops_addr[] filled with this opcode
- prederef cores: build a list
Benjamin Goldberg wrote:
save $P1
restore $P2
[ ... ]
$P2 = $P1
or even removed entirely, rewriting everything after the to refer
to $P1 instead of $P2. Does imcc do anything like this?
Not yet. But it will do, at least for Parrot calling conventions, where
register moves should
Jerome Quelin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Just put a .local or .sym declaration outside/in front of your
subs. This declares a file-scoped variable.
It does not seem to be file-scoped:
.include gets pulled in inside the lexer, so its the same, as it were in
that file.
And
Hey all,
I've got lambda (single-expression anonymous subroutine)
working in pirate now, but I wasn't sure how to get it
to do the correct calling convention with IMCC's call.
For example, pirate turns this:
print (lambda x: x+1)(0) # prints 1\n
into this: (the commented line is the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE version,
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
-Mark
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
Not directly, no. However, some trickyness with macros would probably
let you do it. I don't yet understand macros well enough to show
you...
Luke
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE
In E6, Damian write: A junction is a single scalar value that can act like
two or more values at once.
Whenever I see a statement like this, I tend ask myself What happenned to
zero and one?. Perhaps its intentional; perhaps its sloppy writing. What
issues arise with junctions of 0 or 1 members?
Hi everybody,
That was nice to meet many of you in person at YAPC::EU,
I am trying to learn about continuations and Parrot. I hit a
problem of register allocation. I don't know if it is a
miscomprehension from me or a bug. Probably the former.
Apparently P16 is used both for my Perlhash and the
Hi everybody,
That was nice to meet many of you in person at YAPC::EU,
I am trying to learn about continuations and Parrot. I hit a
problem of register allocation. I don't know if it is a
miscomprehension from me or a bug. Probably the former.
Apparently P16 is used both for my Perlhash
Michal Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey all,
I've got lambda (single-expression anonymous subroutine)
working in pirate now, but I wasn't sure how to get it
to do the correct calling convention with IMCC's call.
I'm pretty sure, that you should use Parrot calling conventions for all
Joseph F. Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you should try to implement lamda through .Sub's. Take a look
at parrot/t/pmc/sub.t for some examples. However, you might not be
able to rely on IMCC to handle arguments and results so much, since I
don't think IMCC uses the new cps calling
Luke Palmer wrote:
I think we should remove nested subs from imcc, because they aren't
buying us anything and are only causing confusion.
Yep. Melvin is for this too.
I said, there are users of this feature, so be careful, but again
another one falling into the very same trap ...
The user
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:46:29 +0200
From: Stéphane Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am trying to learn about continuations and Parrot. I hit a
problem of register allocation. I don't know if it is a
miscomprehension from me or a bug. Probably the former.
Apparently P16 is used both
From: Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:50:05 +0200
Kenneth A Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inside the iterator, there are three differences compared to a function:
1) Every register in use needs to be saved to the user stack. (Anyone
have a clean
FWIW, we're aware of the problem.
I posed this very question to Larry a few months back, when I was writing E6.
We're still mulling over the correct answer. The last thought on the problem
that Larry's shared with me was that there may need to be a special case for
allowing a single block
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
nothing
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e.,
I wrote:
Damian explains:
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
Probably. I think that the '?', '*', and '+ prefixes are abbreviations for
traits (Cis optional, Cis List, Cis optional is named). So a named,
mandatory parameter would be:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
may need to be a special case for allowing a single block parameter after
the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches...
(Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz had
Hello,
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
to the following perl6 junctions:
LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
=
(forall x)(x
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Derek Ross wrote:
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
to the following perl6 junctions:
LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
=
Hello,
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
Yes. Damian and I have already worked them out in a link I have
already posted today:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8safe=offselm=3DF2FE76.6050602%40conway.orgrnum=2
In particular,
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One
I had an idea yesterday. On more than one occassion, a I've been asked
about running tests against a live site. My usual waffle is to talk about
assertions or to build a seperate test suite which is explicitly non-modifying.
Or something Skud came up with which was to tag blocks of tests in the
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:07:15PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Another way is to use a TEST: block
and have Filter::Simple strip them out.
TEST: {
cmp_ok( ... );
}
snip
Questions? Comments? Approval?
Hell, why wait for wiser heads?
Make that...
http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-AtRuntime-0.01.tar.gz
--
I knew right away that my pants and your inner child could be best friends.
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
The only part missing is the ability to shut the tests off once you've
released it to production.
You could perhaps use the assertion feature of perl = 5.9.0
(assertion.pm and -A switch -- yes I know it lacks docs.)
On Friday, August 1, 2003, at 09:07 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
I was thinking about inline testing, Test::Class and such and how it
would
be nice if we could just write test functions right in our code, like
assertions. Like Carp::Assert::More, but I want all the Test:: stuff
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:01:15PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
: The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
: may need to be a special case for allowing a single block parameter after
: the slurpy
:
: And the Rubyometer
I'm sure it needs a few tweaks, but I've managed to write a hq9+
interpreter in pasm.
[insert deity here] help us all. :-)
Any thoughts on this?
http://www.thetasigma.com/parrot/
dha
--
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
It's all eggs, bacon, beans and a fried
52 matches
Mail list logo
