At 4:00 PM -0700 5/23/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
I see no mention of C@@x in this section. I would assume that
C@@x may be bound to any object that does the CMultidimensional
role, with a note to the effect that the CMultidimensional role does
the CPositional role (and thus anything that C@x may
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I see no mention of C@@x in this section. I would assume that
C@@x may be bound to any object that does the CMultidimensional
role, with a note to the effect that the CMultidimensional role does
the CPositional role (and thus anything that C@x may be
On May 23, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Joshua Isom wrote:
I confess to not grasping the point you claim is simple. As you
understand it, what is there about a register based machine, as
opposed to a stack based machine, that specifically improves the
Perhaps it's better to think of '@' and '@@' as working with different
contexts. S02 says that there are three main contexts (void, scalar,
and list); that scalar context has a number of sub-contexts
(boolean, integer, number, and string), and that list context has a
number of sub-contexts based
Folks,
I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
Is anybody else here interested in that packaging system? More
generally, I've heard
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
I really don't know how to answer this question.
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like you are saying that languages are free to implement
their own semantics using their own code, and that they can choose not
to interoperate with predefined Parrot types or types from other
languages when that
At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 19:05 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- better compiler tools than lex and yacc.
Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #43044]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43044
hi,
attached another patch for debug.c I already sent this one, but I just
David Fetter wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
Folks,
I've been wrestling with the .spec file to generate RPMs for parrot
0.4.12, and so far, the .spec file is winning, so I figured I'd do
what I always do when I'm losing: fight dirty and call in help :)
I think that Steven Pritchard has
On Thursday 24 May 2007 05:34:46 Josh Wilmes wrote:
At 20:07 on 05/23/2007 PDT, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:37:06PM -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
Is it necessary (or even fair) to tie compiler components to parrot?
I really don't know how to answer this
Josh Wilmes schrieb:
The compiler tools target Parrot, so that it will be easier for people
(including us) to write languages that run on Parrot.
I understand. I'm just saying that *if* perl 6 were being written to target
an existing VM, any brilliant compiler tools could be written to
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:33:23PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: From S02:
:
: --
:
: Perl 6 includes a system of Bsigils to mark the fundamental
: structural type of a variable:
:
:$ scalar (object)
:@ ordered array
:% unordered hash (associative array)
:
Whoops, quoted but forgot to answer first question...
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:33:23PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Perl 6 includes a system of Bsigils to mark the fundamental
: structural type of a variable:
:
:$ scalar (object)
:@ ordered array
:% unordered hash
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 02:38:11PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
This reports unknown method names when generating C code for PMCs.
WDOT? Is this the right place for it? Should it die instead of warn?
-- Bob Rogers
Larry Wall wrote:
Well, it's already too easy, but the problem I have with it is not
that. My problem is that sigil:@ is the name of a very specific
syntactic notion, while Positional is the name of a very generic
semantic notion. I don't think those levels should be confused.
Fair enough.
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #43048]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=43048
... or so I think:
This works:
.sub zero_check
push_eh one
$N0 = 0.0
At 1:30 PM -0700 5/24/07, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, provided we consider Junction and Any to both be subtypes of Object.
All this time, I was thinking that Any and Object were
synonymous, that Any is a symbolic|syntactic alias for Object, and
Any is not a subtype of Object.
Object is the
From: Robert Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:41:28 +0100
+# check for mispeled or unimplemented method names.
Misspelled is misspelled? :-)
End of diffs.
Bob
Just my lame sense of humor flaring up again.
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
