I'm not convinced this is very good. But I believe that it is an accurate
mission statement, for at least one of our goals:
Perl internals slow,
nigh on unmaintainable.
So we write parrot.
Nicholas Clark
This feels very X-Unity. He might want to look at Test::Class which
provides very similar functionality. Dedicated, inherited test methods.
Setup/teardown routines.
The major benefits of a changeover include no longer having to maintain
your own X-Unit module, parsable output, being able
to play
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> This would give us one additional pointer.
>>
>> Comments welcome
> Go for it. This won't increase the size of the struct, so I can't think of
> a good reason to not do it.
Done (modulo jit_debug stabs)
>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:18:00AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
>
> TEST_FIND_ALL ..
> Connecting to TEST database '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> FAILED!!
> -- Test failed: Different values at index 1: 'Baz, Inc.' vs. 'Foo, Inc.': 'Baz,
> Inc.' ne 'Foo,
> Inc.' on /home/cxp/work/popup_sort/perl_lib/RTK/Re
Hi all,
The company I now work for uses testing modules developed here several years ago. One
of my
coworkers is curious to know how Perl's standard testing modules compare to the ones
they use.
He'll happily consider going with Perl's testing modules if there is a compelling
reason to do so.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> This would give us one additional pointer.
>
> Comments welcome
Go for it. This won't increase the size of the struct, so I can't think of
a good reason to not do it.
Dan
The current layout of all PObjs has a C which looks like:
typedef union UnionVal {
INTVAL int_val; /* PMC unionval members */
FLOATVAL num_val;
DPOINTER* struct_val;
struct parrot_string_t * string_val;
PMC* pmc_val;
struct {/* Buffers structu
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> foreach loopvar (1..1) {
> total[loopvar] = somedata[loopvar] + otherdata[loopvar];
> }
> If either (or both) of somedata or otherdata isn't an array of PMCs,
> there's going to be an awful lot of temporary PMC creation, which is a
> waste.
Y
> Most objects in Parrot will be dealt with by
> reference, which is to say
> that the PMC that a name is bound to is not an
> object, but rather a
> reference PMC that points to the object PMC. An
> assign, in that case, just
> copies the value in the source reference (which is
> the pointer to th
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, TOGoS wrote:
> > The part that affects us is that we can't tell at
> > compiletime whether
> > assignment is rebinding or is a get/set, because we
> > could have code
> > like:
> >
> > kitchentemp = new('kitchenroom');
> > bedroomtemp = new('bedroom');
> > be
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ...is operator overloading. Addition
> > may not really be addition, if one or the other of the data in the
> > operation overloads the addition operator.
>
> pdd02 has 7 vtable slots for C. How will
>
>
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Matt Fowles wrote:
> Dan~
>
> I still don't see why this necessitates keyed variants of all the ops.
> Couldn't we have a "prepkeyed" op which would return a specialized pmc
> to use in the next op?
We could--perl 5 uses a variant of this where active aggregates return a
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > #define PARROT_DECLARE_STATIC_STRING(name, cstring) \
>
> [ big snip ]
>
> While Juergen's original or your proposal are fine, they don't work
> (or not as proposed). First there are compiler issues
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #define PARROT_DECLARE_STATIC_STRING(name, cstring) \
[ big snip ]
While Juergen's original or your proposal are fine, they don't work
(or not as proposed). First there are compiler issues:
$ gcc -Iinclude -Lblib/lib -lparrot -ldl -Wall -g bg.c &&
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...is operator overloading. Addition
> may not really be addition, if one or the other of the data in the
> operation overloads the addition operator.
pdd02 has 7 vtable slots for C. How will
use overload '+' => \&my_add;
look like in Parrot?
leo
> The part that affects us is that we can't tell at
> compiletime whether
> assignment is rebinding or is a get/set, because we
> could have code
> like:
>
> kitchentemp = new('kitchenroom');
> bedroomtemp = new('bedroom');
> bedroomtemp = kitchentemp;
>
>
> which is typeless, a
Matt Fowles writes:
> Dan~
>
> I still don't see why this necessitates keyed variants of all the ops.
> Couldn't we have a "prepkeyed" op which would return a specialized pmc
> to use in the next op?
Yes, we could. But it would be in exchange for both speed (because
we're allocating a new pm
Dan~
I still don't see why this necessitates keyed variants of all the ops.
Couldn't we have a "prepkeyed" op which would return a specialized pmc
to use in the next op? Thus instead of
set P0, P1[P2]
we would have
prepkey P3, P1[P2]
set P0, p#
similarly
add P0[IO], P1
would become
prepke
I've talked about this before and generally I've assumed that people
know what I'm talking about, but that's not true anymore, so an
explanation of this is in order.
"Active Data" is data that takes some active role in its
use--reading, writing, modifying, deleting, or using in some activity.
19 matches
Mail list logo
