my Complex $c = 3+4i;
my $plain = 1.1;
$plain = $c;
This might be even more Complex than that - what if Complex can be
reduced? Should it? for instance:
my Complex $c = 3+4i;
my Complex $d = 4i;
my $plain = $c / $d;
Does $plain get promoted, or does the result from the division get demoted?
Dan Sugalski wrote:
my Complex $c = 3+4i;
my Complex $d = 4i;
my $plain = $c / $d;
Does $plain get promoted, or does the result from the division
get demoted?
Since $plain's not a fixed scalar type, it should be whatever the
division of $c and $d produces, presumably a complex number.
This came up on perl6-internals, and Dan liked the try suggestion and
suggested That I post it here for comments. I'm not subscribed to
p6-language, so you'll need to include me in any replies where you want a
response from me.
=
Dave
Try this. It's might be too 1970's, though.
Grant M.
parrot.gif
Description: GIF image
I don't know who to send this to, but I just received several spams to my
email address that I use only for this list (perl6-internals). If someone
could let me know if someone is responsible for preventing this, please let
me know, so that I can forward the information.
Grant M.
See the FAQ.
This really isn't a very good answer for several reasons (I know the answer,
but that doesn't matter):
1. There is no link to the FAQ on the Perl6 page (that I could find
anyway).
(http://www.panix.com/~ziggy/parrot.html - I think this it)
2. See the FAQ for what? Not using
perl -e ''
is very essential; though I could see a compatibility mode being
enabled by
default with '-e' if necessary.
But perl is not parrot, and parrot doesn't need -e (unless we expect people
to write one-liners in actual bytecode). Perl will be sitting on top of
parrot, so it will
Oh, right, env messing needs to be special for a few reasons:
*) Embedding
*) Threads
*) Various platform quirks. (And no I'm not even talking about VMS or
Windows...)
And potentially CORBA/COM/DCOM/RPC/IPC? or is that Embedding?
Grant M.
I'm getting tempted to have some sort of multi-level ENV thing that, for
most single-interpreter cases, collapses down to a plain getenv/putenv.
What about an RPC/IPC API that communicates (bi-directionally) with the
parent application if one exists, and if not, it runs inside a wrapper app
I was wandering around looking for some non-parrot related stuff, and came
across this wonderful tidbit. Was this mentioned somewhere in the mail list
or on perl.com and I missed it?
http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=1780/urm0111h/0111h.htm
If it wasn't posted to the prl6-* list, it should
I don't think we can solve this here. This is something that has been a
problem for some time, with solutions of various success. We already have
the options of Ant, XPInstall, RPM, and many others, but I tend to believe
that the most widely known tools are the auto* stuff. That counts for a lot.
1) Do we put them all in the parrot CVS tree
I think it would be good for the languages to be in tree, but I would like
to have it under a different mechanism for cvs checkout. In other words, the
default cvs checkout of parrot does NOT check out the languages tree, but a
separate checkout is
Automated snapshots and e-mail notifications of CVS commits have both
stopped. What's going on?
At some point, someone set the clock back on the machine that sends the mail
(I noticed because all of my new mails are coming in as older than ones that
I received earlier in the day). If this is
Uri Guttman wrote:
but having parrot op codes map to special instructions
makes sense only if we are doing some form of machine instruction
generation as with JIT or TIL.
Actually, I wasn't necessarily asking for any special ops (I'm not actually
asking for anything, it's just a suggestion),
Well, I used to do some embedded systems programming using C, and many of
the compilers would make attempts to optimize logical ops like
if( byte_variable 0xF7 ){...
into something using a processor op equivalent to the 8051C
testbit( byte_variable, bit_offset).
The 8051 processor has
I'm having trouble with my hosting company (wehost.net is poop!). That last
email was a reply that I sent last night at 6pm. Please ignore it :-P
Grant M.
Just curious, would it be practical to design-in a boolean-specific
register/set of registers? There are many processors (PICC, 8051, etc.)
which would likely be better able utilize their own optimizations if this
were the case ( bitset, testbit, high, low, etc.). It could be done without
the
'use constant FOO = foo' could add some magic to never let FOO
being redefined (not a bad coice for a constant).
-- Johan
I like this idea best (for now). Perhaps 'constant sub foo' or 'sub
foo:constant'? By doing it that way, it is apparent to both Perl and the
developer that this is an
18 matches
Mail list logo
