5:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Newbie Question
On 04/01/04 Goplat wrote:
> > I read in the FAQ, vis a vis using the .NET instead of writing your own
> > "The .NET VM didn't even exist when we started development, or at least we
> > didn't know about i
On 04/01/04 Goplat wrote:
> > I read in the FAQ, vis a vis using the .NET instead of writing your own
> > "The .NET VM didn't even exist when we started development, or at least we
> > didn't know about it when we were working on the design. We do now, though
> > it's still not suitable."
[...]
> T
--- Kent Tegels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, all, and greetings from Omaha.
>
> I read in the FAQ, vis a vis using the .NET instead of writing your own
> "The .NET VM didn't even exist when we started development, or at least we
> didn't know about it when we were working on the design. We
Hello, all, and greetings from Omaha.
I read in the FAQ, vis a vis using the .NET instead of writing your own "The
.NET VM didn't even exist when we started development, or at least we didn't
know about it when we were working on the design. We do now, though it's
still not suitable."
I'm curi
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 04:26, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Is someone tracking the mailing list and adding questions and (good)
> answers into the FAQ?
Whoops, I'd planned to add this opcode question and answer to the FAQ
this weekend. Thanks for the reminder, Tim!
-- c
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:03:19AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 6:06 PM -0500 3/11/04, Matt Greenwood wrote:
> >Hi all,
> > I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
> >point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What is the design
> >ratio
My weekly perusing on parrot lists...
On 03/12/04 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> For example, if you look you'll see we have 28 binary "add" ops.
> .NET, on the other hand, only has one, and most hardware CPUs have a
Actually, there are three opcodes: add, add.ovf, add.ovf.un (the last
two throw an ex
Matt Greenwood wrote:
> Firstly, you have made an assumption that the addition here is
> equivalent to OR and carry, which may be correct for certain
> representations of integral datatypes, but certainly isn't for any
> kind of floating point arithmetic that I know of.
True enough, but I think I g
> How, exactly, is taking two strings, making a third string that's big
> enough to contain both, and copying the contents of those two strings
> into the third one like taking two numbers, doing a binary OR with
> carry, and storing the result in a third number?
Firstly, you have made an assumpti
Matt Greenwood wrote:
> why have both concat and
> add...?
How, exactly, is taking two strings, making a third string that's big
enough to contain both, and copying the contents of those two strings
into the third one like taking two numbers, doing a binary OR with
carry, and storing the result
ay, March 12, 2004 2:07 AM
To: Matt Greenwood
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: newbie question
Matt Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
> point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What
At 6:06 PM -0500 3/11/04, Matt Greenwood wrote:
Hi all,
I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What is the design
rationale for so many opcodes in parrot? What are the criteria for
adding/deleting them?
Whether we have a
d
add...?
Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: Leopold Toetsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 2:07 AM
> To: Matt Greenwood
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: newbie question
>
> Matt Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTE
[Matt == [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:06:56 -0500]
Matt> What is the design rationale for so many opcodes in parrot?
Completeness and performance. Many of the opcodes are type-specific
variants of other multi-type opcodes.
Given that 99+% of parrot code will be automatically generat
Matt Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
> point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What is the design
> rationale for so many opcodes in parrot?
We have four different register types. They hav
Matt Greenwood wrote:
I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What is the design
rationale for so many opcodes in parrot?
Let me try as another newbie... ;-)
Since the opcodes of parrot are not directly supported by any
Hi all,
I have a newbie question. If the answer exists in a doc, just
point the way (I browsed the docs directory). What is the design
rationale for so many opcodes in parrot? What are the criteria for
adding/deleting them?
Thanks
> "John" == John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> 1) Methods are always public
John> 2) Variables are always private (and in this case that means that other
John> instances may not view the instance variables of an object; I don't
John> recall whether the class can see the ivars of its
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 07:26:37AM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> Smalltalk doesn't give you any privacy options, but it does dictate a
> certain degree of privacy. Smalltalk is big on "information hiding" as
> part of the whole "OOP is an extension of Abstract Data Typing" concept.
>
> 1) Methods ar
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:49:34PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>> That way you could choose to impliment Smalltalk or C++ style
>> protections (public, private, protected, etc)
>
>Last I checked Smalltalk had no privacy protection.
>
>> So, for Smalltalk t
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:49:34PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> So, for example, lets say I have an object $foo, which is an instance of
> Class A. In one method, foo tries to access an instance variable of
> $bar, an instance of Class B (not inherited from Class A).
This is a naughty thing to do.
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Schwern explained:
>
>> Going away? No way, it's SPREADING! We might wind up with AUTOGLOB, too.
>>
>> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/324.pod
>
> Though it won't be called AUTOGLOB (globs *are* going away),
> and its semantics might be closer to those portrayed i
At 06:48 AM 11/9/2001 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> >>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
> >>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for
>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
>>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for
>>operator overloading ... but, what are the smalltalkers g
Schwern explained:
> Going away? No way, it's SPREADING! We might wind up with AUTOGLOB, too.
>
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/324.pod
Though it won't be called AUTOGLOB (globs *are* going away),
and its semantics might be closer to those portrayed in:
http://www.yetanother.org
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 04:21:57PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
> be coming forth?
Yeah, that was mentioned in Apoc and Exewhatever 3.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quali
At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
>be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for
>operator overloading ... but, what are the smalltalkers gonna do, take
>away my membership card?)
What,
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:56:59PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> > So, I'm reading various things about lots of changes for perl6, and some
> > arcane things going away, and stuff like that.. and I suddenly wondered
> > if one of my favorite features of Perl Objects (the
On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:56:59PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
> So, I'm reading various things about lots of changes for perl6, and some
> arcane things going away, and stuff like that.. and I suddenly wondered
> if one of my favorite features of Perl Objects (the one that keeps me
> from migrating t
At 03:56 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
>I suddenly wondered
>if one of my favorite features of Perl Objects is going away:
>AUTOLOAD.
Only over Damian's dead body... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
D
So, I'm reading various things about lots of changes for perl6, and some
arcane things going away, and stuff like that.. and I suddenly wondered
if one of my favorite features of Perl Objects (the one that keeps me
from migrating to tcl or python, cuz I can never find clear information
about whe
31 matches
Mail list logo
