I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
problem-solving. People are trying to enumerate definitions to impose
on something, rather than starting with the thing at hand and
exhausting any clues it may provide before moving on. This can lead to
serious and, in hindsight,
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-04-26 through 2005-05-03
^^
^^
Wow!
Michele
--
Why should I read the fucking manual? I know how to fuck!
In fact the problem is that the fucking manual only gives you
Bob Rogers wrote:
. . . but I can't figure out why. I thought the patch below would
help, but it appears that the value of c is itself broken somehow.
The memory handling was broken and disassemble didn't know how to handle
PMC constants.
Fixed - rev 7971.
Thanks for testing,
leo
Jerry Gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i couldn't find documentation on the behavior of IMCC if the @MAIN
subpragma was defined on more than one subroutine, so i modified the
documentation to reflect the system behavior, and provided a test.
BTW the system runs the last subroutine marked as
jerry gay (via RT) wrote:
i couldn't find documentation on the behavior of IMCC if the @MAIN
subpragma was defined on more than one subroutine
I've now added a test for multipe @LOADs too - works fine.
leo
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
When you dispatch, what happens would depend upon WALKMETH (according to
the pseudocode for CALLONE in A12). Usually the first inherited method
would get called.
Ohh, yes, that thing. I forget about it. And actually I hope that
there's a version among the standard pragmas
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:52:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
I already suggested a syntax like '+$write|w' for having multiple
ways to say the same thing. I don't like an explicit :mode. Let
Perl figure that out based on passed named arguments.
I'd like to see this specced. What you're suggesting is
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 13:48 (+0300):
* canonical representations (eg, :w in your example should probably set
$write)
Or, possibly, $w := $write.
* mutually exclusive options (for open modes, :write should exclude
:append)
I don't really care if this goes in the signature.
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
I am currently thinking that the metaoperator is a prefix spelled \\
(though there are certainly lots of other possibilities that I've laid
awake all night
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 22:51, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
and how will that
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 16:13, Mark Reed wrote:
On 2005-05-02 15:52, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-02 22:25 (+0300):
open 'ls', '|-'; # or even
open 'ls', :pipe = 'from'
I dislike the hard-to-tell-apart symbols '' and '' for modes.
Are these equivalent? (Assuming reduce isn't going away)
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 5:36 (-0700):
$sum = \\+ @array;
$fact = \\* 1..$num;
$sum = reduce infix:+, @arrayd;
$fact = reduce infix:*, 1..$num;
$firsttrue = \\|| @args;
$firstdef = \\// @args;
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:47:17AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I would expect open to be a bit of an anachronism in P6, but still
: used fairly often. For the most part, I would expect that:
:
: my IO $read_fh = '/some/path' = 'r'; # Get an IO::File (is IO)
: my IO $write_fh =
Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
@foo == zip == @bar
H...
@quux
||
||
\/
@foo == zip == @bar
/\
||
||
@xyzzy
:)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
I'm worried that the list of P6 operators is going to be as long as
the list of P5 keywords, with a lot of them looking something like:
verbdirect objectindirect
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 08:36, Larry Wall wrote:
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
Sounds very cool! I like it... but...
$sum = ®+ @array;
I don't think you can do that workably. In the
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:53:54PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Hm, if == and == are made special syntax, maybe this would be
: possible?
:
: @foo == zip == @bar
It's already the case that == binds tighter, so it should work the
same as
@foo == (zip == @bar)
or
zip == @bar == @foo
or
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
:
: $sum = (+) @array;
:
: I've not thought through all of the implications to the parser, but I
: think this works, and it certainly ends up looking very mnemonic
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-05-04 9:00 (-0400):
$sum = ®+ @array;
I don't think you can do that workably. In the font I use, I was
scratching my head asking how does @ work there?! Yep, I can't tell ®
and @ apart without getting REAL close to the screen.
Perhaps this just means that the
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
: keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
Because it's an operator/macro in any event, with weird unary or
listop parsing:
reduce(+)
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
I second that. By all means! (But I thin it would be desirable to have a
'plain' reduce operator as well)
Michele
--
The
AS == Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AS On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 22:51, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
and how will that
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgp9rBdIQIdVk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 6:10 (-0700):
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
: keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
Because it's an operator/macro in any event, with
Using that argument, every keyword is really an operator/macro.
Instead of sub/method/multimethod, we could use a special character.
sub foo { ... }
becomes
foo { ... }
A method is , a multimethod is *, and so on. (I don't have a
Unicode mail client or I'd look for a Unicode character.)
What
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
: @foo == zip == @bar
:
: H...
:
:@quux
: ||
: ||
: \/
: @foo == zip == @bar
: /\
: ||
: ||
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-04 21:13 (+0800):
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
complaining about $x not being an arrayreference (not knowing how
to handle postcircumfix:[
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
LW any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
LW I am currently thinking that the metaoperator is a prefix spelled \\
LW (though there are certainly
Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 15:18 (+0200):
I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
complaining about $x not being an arrayreference (not knowing how
to handle postcircumfix:[ ]).
Ehm :)
s/explicit/implicit/
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
J == Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
@foo == zip == @bar
J H...
J@quux
J ||
J ||
J \/
J @foo == zip == @bar
J /\
J ||
J ||
J
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: LW $fact = \\* 1..$num;
:
: shouldn't that be s/fact/prod/ ? sure the input makes it a factorial but
: the general case would be a product. not that what var names you choose
:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:06, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
:
: $sum = (+) @array;
It's certainly one of the ones I considered, along with all the other
brackets, and |+|,
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:15:09PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 6:10 (-0700):
: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: : This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
: : keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Oh hey, I just made up list:... There's nothing for that listed in
: A12, and that handy table from A12 doesn't show up in S12 or S13... is
: that an oversight? Have new categories been added?
List ops are probably just prefix: with
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:24:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, it doesn't immediately deref as an array, so it fails.
Oh. So autodereference is only one level? I got it all wrong
in Pugs, then. I wonder where I got that impression...
Now @$x would infinite loop according to what I said a
Uri Guttman skribis 2005-05-04 9:23 (-0400):
you are brainfucking me! stop it now!!
+++[++-]+++.[-].
[-]-.---.+++[+++-].+
++[---]+..+++[+++-].+..+++[---]
.-.+...[+-]++.+++[--]
I had implicitly touched on this in the past, but speaking of binops - and
of functional features in Perl6, is there any provision of a (list
associative?) composition binop?
I had naively thought about == and/or ==, but that's somewhat on a
different level.
What I refer to now is something
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-04 21:13 (+0800):
: What should this do, if not infinite loop?
: my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
:
: I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
: complaining about $x not
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:06, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: : That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
: :
: : $sum = (+) @array;
:
: It's certainly
All,
I am not the only one who has found porting p5 to working p6 code
relatively easy and similar looking:
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=453821
In that thread, the author raised the question of coroutine support in
Perl. I looked up coroutines in the Perl6 Timeline By Apocalypse
thread
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:38:58PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:24:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Yes, it doesn't immediately deref as an array, so it fails.
:
: Oh. So autodereference is only one level? I got it all wrong
: in Pugs, then. I wonder where I got
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:23, Uri Guttman wrote:
J == Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
@foo == zip == @bar
J H...
J@quux
J ||
J ||
J \/
J @foo == zip == @bar
J
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:45, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Hmmm...
:
: $sum = [+] @array
:
: Nice.
I just thought that'd be visually confusing in a subscript:
@foo[0..9; [;[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 0..9]
Now, why did I think you
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines?
A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after a
previous return, so I would expect that in Perl, a
On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines? I ask
because after reading Dan's What the heck is: a coroutine, it is
What I refer to now is something that takes two {coderefs,anonymous
subs,closures} and returns (an object that behaves like) another anonymous
sub, precisely the one that acts like the former followed by the latter
(or vice versa!).
Do you mean like the mathematical 'f o g'?
i.e. (f o g)($x)
What about the function compose() that would live in the module
keyword, imported by the incantation use keyword qw( compose );?
(NB: My P6-fu sucks right now)
multimethod compose (@*List) {
return {
$_() for @List;
};
}
On 5/4/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had
On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok - this isn't what I was expecting at all. That doesn't make it a
bad thing. Given something that looks a lot more like a typical
coroutine:
sub example is coroutine {
yield 1;
yield 2;
yield 3;
}
I would expect
for 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
problem-solving. People are trying to enumerate definitions to impose
on something, rather than starting with the thing at hand and
exhausting any clues it may provide before moving on. This can lead to
serious
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:47:17AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I would expect open to be a bit of an anachronism in P6, but still
used fairly often. For the most part, I would expect that:
my IO $read_fh = '/some/path' = 'r'; # Get an IO::File (is IO)
my IO $write_fh =
Hi,
Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines? I ask
because after reading Dan's What the
On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok - this isn't what I was expecting at all. That doesn't make it a
bad thing. Given something that looks a lot more like a typical
coroutine:
sub example is coroutine {
yield 1;
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines?
A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after
Hi,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
What about the function compose() that would live in the module
keyword, imported by the incantation use keyword qw( compose );?
FWIW, I like o better -- function composing is very often used in FP,
and should therefore have a short name.
Luckily, it's very easy to
I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
and putting those operators in the core.
My understanding of P6 after the reading the AES
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 17:24 (+0300):
Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
pipe return. If it's a one-way pipe, okay, this may be a single handle;
but for bidirectional opens, we need $in, $out, and $err handles; and
That'd be tridirectional, then.
A
Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
On 5/4/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 17:24 (+0300):
Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
pipe
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
pipe return. If it's a one-way pipe, okay, this may be a single handle;
but for bidirectional opens, we need $in, $out, and $err handles; and
That'd be
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:02 (-0400):
Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
I don't know what warning on a filehandle should be or do, but ignoring
that bit, yes, an exception would be the right thing to
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 18:15 (+0300):
Yes, if $h is the not-very-primitive version of IO. Surely the type of
$h.in is not the same as $h itself?
Why not? $h does IO::Handle::Tridirectional, and $h.in does not, even though
$h and $h.in are-a IO::Handle.
Or whatever the classes will be,
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:02 (-0400):
Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
I don't know what warning on a filehandle should be or do, but ignoring
that bit, yes, an exception would be the right
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:20 (-0400):
$h.print() goes to $h.out
$h.readline() goes to $h.in
$h.warn() goes to $h.err
Making the tri-directional trifecta complete.
It's sort-of consistent, but I don't like it, because warnings are much
more complicated than just things that are printed
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
a ref to ref of undef. I see no circle.
Now let's look at $x = 1. I think it goes down
to
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:29:35AM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Except that xor or ^^ is only a binary operation, there is no
xor(p1,p2,...), only p1 xor p2 xor ... which can really only be
understood if you add () to disambiguate the order that the binary ops
are performed. Fortunately,
i'm neck deep in writing the IMC eval code for pugs. if i've already
loaded bytecode using Parrot_readbc/loadbc, i can then successfully call
the PIR compiler and eval code at will from C/Haskell. great!
however, without the Parrot_readbc step, everything bombs out because the
packfile isn't
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:30:48PM +0200, Thomas Sandla wrote:
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
a ref to ref of
Autrijus Tang wrote:
If the reference semantics changed drastically, please
reflect it prominiently in the relevant Synopsis. :)
Unfortunately I don't feel entitled to do so. I'm
just an interessted bystander, not a member of the
design team.
Sorry.
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Whilst I confess that it's unlikely to be me here, if anyone has the time
to contribute some help, do you have a list of useful self-contained tasks
that people might be able to take on?
Actually, overnight I realized there's a
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:37:43PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Nathan Gray wrote:
Can you put the definitions of each attribute in one of the README
files?
I will put these common ones in there yes. However, the nice aspect of
using the TODO reason attribute
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:55:57AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I don't think there's a perfect solution for what you want, but this is
: pretty darned close.
Yes, and I was always a little fond of the bracket solution since it
lets you visually distinguish
$x = [»+«] @foo;
$x = [+]«
At 10:21 AM -0500 5/4/05, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:22:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Whilst I confess that it's unlikely to be me here, if anyone has the time
to contribute some help, do you have a list of useful self-contained tasks
that people might be able to
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-05-04 17:30 (+0200):
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
a ref to ref of undef. I see no circle.
No, again, please do not make the mistake of thinking VALUES
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:30, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
a ref to ref of undef. I
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
: have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
: at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
: and putting those
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Parrot gives each PMC class 8 private flag bits. I was wondering how to use
these most efficiently for ponie. My thoughts so far are
1 bit for SVf_IOK
1 bit for SVf_NOK
1 bit for
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:24:04AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:36:02PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
in the common cases be able to access the PObj structure members directly.
I may be speaking here like someone at the back who hasn't been paying
attention, but..
Matt Fowles schrieb:
imc http server
Markus Amslser wanted to write a tiny webserver in imc. This led to the
discovery of that the binary to ascii transcoding is absent. Leo
suggested several possible solutions.
http://xrl.us/fyo8
Actually Markus Amsler did write a working tiny
Hi,
I noticed that the favicon.ico for http://www.parrotcode.org is a Camel.
Can we have a Parrot for that, in order to do the many non-Perl Parrot
based languages justice?
Putting that favicon.ico into 'docs' would also make
'examples/io/httpd.imc' happy.
CU, Bernhard
J == Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:20 (-0400):
$h.print() goes to $h.out
$h.readline() goes to $h.in
$h.warn() goes to $h.err
Making the tri-directional trifecta complete.
J It's sort-of consistent, but I don't like it, because warnings are
Are there any particular other operators you're worried about?
I think the current design does a pretty good job of factoring out the
metaoperators so that the actual set of underlying basic operators *is*
relatively small. Yes, you can now say something like
$x = [»+^=«] @foo;
but
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines?
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Squint harder ;-)
I'm trying!
If we agree that the first say should print 7, then we must conclude
that either we've changed the value of undef to 7, or we've created a
circular reference.
In my view of refs 7 is printed, indeed. But I've difficulty to understand
what you
# New Ticket Created by Franois PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #35223]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=35223
Small building problem with MinGW32.
make[1]: Entering directory
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:30:48PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:21 AM -0500 5/4/05, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Actually, overnight I realized there's a relatively good-sized
project that needs figuring out -- identifying character properties
such as isalpha, islower, isprint, etc. Here
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:22:43PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after a
previous return, so I would expect that in
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
[ see below for some more ]
Actually, overnight I realized there's a relatively good-sized
project that needs figuring out -- identifying character properties
such as isalpha, islower, isprint, etc. Here I'll briefly sketch
how I'd like it to work, and maybe someone
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[ CCs cleared by some ]
... However there's a lot of source outside pp*.c and
the SV/AV/HV/CV/GV manipulation code.
A lot of that are helper functions for pp code, but anyway yes, the code
exists and is an API.
Which is the stuff we're trying to keep working unchanged.
If
Dave Mitchell wrote:
So pseduo-code like
if (pmc-vtable-is_IOK())
...
else if (pmc-vtable-is_NOK())
...
becomes
status = pmc-vtable-status();
if (status IOK)
...
else if (status NOK)
That would still need to rewrite all but 1% of perl5 code and doesn't
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:53:59PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:32:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: : # Type Instantiation?
: : sub apply (fun::a returns ::b, ::a $arg) returns ::b {
: : fun($arg);
: : }
:
: The first parameter would be fun:(::a)
Jeff Horwitz wrote:
i'm neck deep in writing the IMC eval code for pugs. if i've already
loaded bytecode using Parrot_readbc/loadbc, i can then successfully call
the PIR compiler and eval code at will from C/Haskell. great!
however, without the Parrot_readbc step, everything bombs out because
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:23:50AM -0700, François PERRAD wrote:
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #35223]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=35223
Small
[Not back, just sufficiently irritated...]
Luke Palmer wrote:
in my proposal, when you call a coroutine, it returns an iterator (and
doesn't call anything):
my $example = example();
=$example; # 1
=$example; # 2
The thing this buys over the traditional (which I refer to as the
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
John Macdonald wrote:
The most common (and what people sometimes believe the
*only* usage) is as a generator - a coroutime which creates a
sequence of values as its chunk and always returns control
to its caller. (This retains part
John Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
If there are good uses for coroutines that given/take does not address,
I'll gladly change my opinion. But I'd like to see some examples.
FWIW, I believe that Patrick's example of the PGE returning matches
could
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 01:51, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 08:58 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Here is some example P5 source from pp_pow in pp.c:
I presume that Ponie eventually will run Parrot opcodes. pp_pow() is
like all these functions part of
Hi all,
So, there I was setting up an OpenFoundry account for another project,
http://utilvserver.openfoundry.org/, when they wanted to get commit e-mails
with diffs. So I logged a feature request at http://xrl.us/fy3j, but that
didn't give me commit e-mails straight away, so instead I decided to
$sum = reduce(+) @array; # macro
$sum = reduce infix:+ @array; # regular sub
$sum = [+] @array; # meta operator
($sum = 0) += @array;# hyper tricks
use My::Cool::Reduce::Mixin; # unless in core
$sum = @array.reduce(+); #
On May 4, 2005 06:22 pm, Rod Adams wrote:
John Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
If there are good uses for coroutines that given/take does not address,
I'll gladly change my opinion. But I'd like to see some examples.
FWIW, I believe that
What should the output of this be:
given hello {
when /hello/ {
say One;
when /hello/ { say Two; }
when /hello/ { say Three; }
continue;
}
say Four;
}
I think:
One
Two
Three
Four
But pugs thinks:
How do I open a file named -? How do I open stdout (and the other
standard handles)?
--
Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
