From: "Matt Diephouse via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:26:05 -0700
. . .
Again, I believe this is what Bob was saying: it's not possible to be
faithful to the original p5 source without creating a separate
subroutine for every loop body.
Exactly.
And t
On 8/3/07, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:37:39PM -0700, Bob Rogers wrote:
> >A naive PIR implementation of this loop is included as the second
> > attachment. It fails miserably, because PIR can't distinguish between
> > the different scopes for "$i
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 21:51:53 -0500
Perhaps ignore my earlier message -- this one is more coherent.
I haven't gotten that one yet. (Must have been via RT. Now if I could
only remember to send all my incoherent posts via RT. ;-)
On Fr
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:51:53PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Currently, the only way to get a distinct binding for each "$i" in
> > PIR is to factor the loop body out into a separate lexical sub. This is
> > far from ideal, not least because it is not transparent to the HLL user.
>
Perhaps ignore my earlier message -- this one is more coherent.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:37:39PM -0700, Bob Rogers wrote:
> sub make_closures_loop {
> # Return $n closures, each with lexical references to $i and $n.
> my $n = shift;
>
> my @result;
>
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 03:37:39PM -0700, Bob Rogers wrote:
>A naive PIR implementation of this loop is included as the second
> attachment. It fails miserably, because PIR can't distinguish between
> the different scopes for "$i" and "$n".
>
> sub make_closures_loop {
> # Return n closur
# New Ticket Created by Bob Rogers
# Please include the string: [perl #44395]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44395 >
The problem arises when blocks with closed-over lexical bindings are
executed more tha
