Paul Hodges writes:
> Larry Wall writes:
> > Perl 5 didn't allow exportation of lexicals because typeglobs only
> > dealt with package variables, not lexical variables. In Perl 6
> > we'll be able to alias both lexicals and package variables. That
> > implies that a lexically scoped name can be e
With apologies, I'm already seeing blunders. *sigh*
> my Baz @ray = ( Baz.new() );
No reason to type that. Should be
my @ray = ( Baz.new() );
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
> : And "exportation"???
>
> Exportation is just aliasing some name inside a scope to somewhere
> outside the scope. Importatation is the same operation from the
> viewpoint of the importing scope.
I just wasn't thinking clearly when you said it the first time.
> Perl 5 didn't allow exportation
> : but it confuses me. Does that mean you're leaning more toward
> : allowing undeclared properties, or just that you're still trying
> : to give both sides of the argument thorough consideration?
>
> I'm not doing either of those things... :-)
Yayy! :)
> : Just for my vote, I want to be able
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:53:50PM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 08:50:57AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
: > : hmm... lexical propertiesI've read the rest of the message,
: > : and I see how this could be a problem. Just to be
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:40:10PM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Yes, in fact it gets a new anonymous class that is derived from its
: > current class.
:
: Ah -- implicit adoption by the new foster parent. That's kind of neat,
: but it confuses me. Does
I've not been playing close attention to parrot recently
[Been busy hacking for the dark side :-)]
I've just noticed that Leo added a check for whether the C compiler supports
the inline keyword:
http://nntp.x.perl.org/group/perl.cvs.parrot/5176
PARROT_INLINE conditionally becomes either inline o
--- Paul Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> print "foo" is $x;
With deeply sincere apologies, that should have been
print "foo" if $x;
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 08:50:57AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : hmm... lexical propertiesI've read the rest of the message,
> : and I see how this could be a problem. Just to be clear on it,
> : what exactly would it mean for a property or trait to
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : --- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > Larry Wall writes:
> : >
> : > > : if $x.foo { print "$x has property foo" }
> : > > : $x.bar = 1; # Or $x = $x but bar
> : > >
> :
# New Ticket Created by "Bernice Murray"
# Please include the string: [perl #24573]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24573 >
# New Ticket Created by Cory Spencer
# Please include the string: [perl #24572]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=24572 >
Adds an 'eq_addr' opcode with syntax:
eq_addr(in PMC, in PMC, inconst INT)
eq_ad
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 08:50:57AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
: hmm... lexical propertiesI've read the rest of the message, and I
: see how this could be a problem. Just to be clear on it, what exactly
: would it mean for a property or trait to be lexical? If a value or
: container with that asp
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
: --- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Larry Wall writes:
: >
: > > : if $x.foo { print "$x has property foo" }
: > > : $x.bar = 1; # Or $x = $x but bar
: > >
: > > Or maybe the .bar notation is only for rvalues, and to
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 18:19, Allison Randal wrote:
> This patch updates vector operators (from ^+ to >>+<<) and the XOR
> operator (from ~~ to ^^) to match the current design.
Thanks, applied.
-- c
Pete Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ad subject: subroutines are self-contained parts of compiling a program.
They have their own CFG, life analysis and so on. So its the "natural"
way to compile these as units.
> Am I missing a trick here, thinking it would be better to allow eg:
If you have s
--- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall writes:
>
> > : if $x.foo { print "$x has property foo" }
> > : $x.bar = 1; # Or $x = $x but bar
> >
> > Or maybe the .bar notation is only for rvalues, and to create a
> > property you have to say:
> >
> > $x but= bar;
>
> I th
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:08:05PM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > ... in fact, we may be limiting the creation of properties
> : > to predeclared names, so that even
> : >
> : > return 0 but ture;
> : >
Am I missing a trick here, thinking it would be better to allow eg:
.imcc
.local int a
.sub _get_a
return a
.end
.sub _set_a
restore a
.end
.endimcc
I wrote here at mid-May:
[ vtable <-> opcode coverage ]
Here is an update of a really old story:
$ ./vtbc.pl # s. below
vtable coverage
vtable.tbl has 202 entries
core_ops.c has 116 entries + 10 internally used
[ ... ]
76 unused
19 _bignum variants - TODO
19 unused vtables with _same suff
20 matches
Mail list logo
