On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I think of Parrot as a CPU. When we have adequately designed the CPU,
> people don't need new ops.
I think of it as a VAX, in which case "adequately designed" means "just a
few microcode ops" ;).
/s
Dan wrote:
>At 10:43 AM -0400 7/29/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>>At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>The VM and assembler does not need to provide every operator as
>>an new 'op'. Eventually, languages with funky operators need to start
thinking
>>about implementing them as methods or
At 10:43 AM -0400 7/29/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character
>>operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII,
>>but it helps), state their name, and
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character
> operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII,
> but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether
> listop, binop
How about (with a tip o' th' hat to DEK):
SWYM (Sympathize With Your Machinery)
-- Gregor
> [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy
> three character
> operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not
> necessarily ASCII,
> but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose
> (including whether
> listop, binop, uniop, precedence, associativity or w
At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character
>operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII,
>but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether
>listop, bin
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 06:59:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept
> > > at all is questionable -- there's no w
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept
> > at all is questionable -- there's no way to get at it syntactically from
>
> would be a regexp match. In effe
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept
> at all is questionable -- there's no way to get at it syntactically from
> Perl or any other language that has separate numeric and string
> comparisons. It
10 matches
Mail list logo