Hello all,
Maybe some of you remember how I used to have endless hours in Berlin
to fiddle with Parrot documentation. Then I got a job, moved back to
London, and disappeared.
I can't say I have been following the list closely, but I have read the
occasional summary from time to time. I'm out of
At 06:41 PM 7/30/2002 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > I read that as "expressions are evaluated once", not "PMC's are accessed
> > once". So something like
> >
> > 2 < $i++ < 23
> >
> > will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
> > temporary.
>
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I read that as "expressions are evaluated once", not "PMC's are accessed
> once". So something like
>
> 2 < $i++ < 23
>
> will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
> temporary.
I don't see that. $i++ increments the original PMC.
2 <
At 7:28 PM +0100 7/30/02, Graham Barr wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:08:46AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> > I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
>> > said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just onc
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:08:46AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
> > said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just once.
> > That argues for moving the values to N or S r
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> And if you've tied a variable to have side effects every time it's
> accessed, you shouldn't care if the results are unpredictable.
s/tied a variable/implemented a type/. Argh.
/s
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
> said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just once.
> That argues for moving the values to N or S registers.
I read that as "expressions are evaluated once", not "PMC's
At 8:53 PM -0700 7/29/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> If I thought anyone'd do control flow with it, I'd have a version of
>> the op for that, but I don't think we're going to see that, and perl
>> doesn't do it, so...
>
>Okay, writing this email has convin
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> If I thought anyone'd do control flow with it, I'd have a version of
> the op for that, but I don't think we're going to see that, and perl
> doesn't do it, so...
Okay, writing this email has convinced me that maybe we don't need these
ops. If Perl's go
At 8:13 PM -0700 7/29/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
>> cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
>
>Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
>
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
> cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
like "cmps Ix, Py, Pz"? Also, would num-comparisons be
And I'll be digging through the backlog of mail. On the top 'o the
list is keys, defining the extension mechanism, and the exception
infrastructure. We'll go from there.
In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
I'm back. I notified Simon on the tenth that I was going to be away
until today. I'm trying to catch up on the nine-hundred-odd messages
the p6? and p5p have thrown at me, so I may be realistically out of
commission for a couple days more.
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Configure pu
13 matches
Mail list logo
