Clinton A. Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most of the discussion in p6i goes right over my head, but I'm
certainly enjoying the fruits of their labors.
Huge amounts of it go over my head too, which means I'm never *quite*
sure whether I've got the salient points in my summaries.
--
Piers
At 08:07 PM 8/21/2002 +0100, Ximon Eighteen wrote:
You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
Personally I've been a little disappointed
in the involvement(interest) of late.
-Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Mark Koopman wrote:
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
myself. I only wish I had the time experience/skill/knowledge to
contribute.
Keep up the good work.
Lurker honk, agreement. :)
R.
'John Porter' wrote:
Brent Dax wrote:
No; but statements like imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's
(still very dynamic) feature set and discussions of imcc syntax
naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project.
E.g. will the perl6 compiler target imcc?
The perl6
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Well, Sean's not quite sure about that. I agree with Melvin that using
PASM syntax for IMCC could make it harder to target other platforms.
I don't know Melvin's plan for other targets - but - as parrot is very
special - I
Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So please, first, let's consider the status quo, not the future.
Agree.
_SV_s1 = clone $P1
I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
What do you think?
No changes in
At 09:49 PM 8/20/2002 -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
This is what you'll need. It uses dlopen(), and is likely Bad in a number
of other ways, but if you're on a fairly normal UNIX, it should allow imcc
to grok what P6C produces for regexes.
Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear
Replying to myself because I forgot to include these files...
/s
anyop.tgz
Description: Binary data
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
About the implementation, I think we will need the following metadata about
each op:
i) the opcode, and the op name.
ii) the type of arguments, including in/out/etc..
Both of these are available, though there currently isn't an efficient
interface to
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:02:51 +0200 Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we all agree that since parrot can have dynamic oplibs (and core
parrot has hundreds of ops), imcc needs some way to directly express them.
The idea of having parrot ops be included as such, and imcc directives be
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:05:57AM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear other opinions than
mine, yours, Angel's and Leopold's.
Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6
Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
discussions public? languages/imcc and languages/perl6 are very major
components, and they have been very little discussed on-list. imcc
Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
time someone suggested making a separate
list for
Sure, I have no problem with it. At one
time someone suggested making a separate
list for Parrot compilers, so I took it as
a hint that maybe we were spamming.
I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
So people interested
You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
Personally I've been a little disappointed
in the involvement(interest) of late.
-Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like myself. I
only wish I had the time experience/skill/knowledge to contribute.
Keep up the good
You _would_ think so, wouldn't you? :)
Personally I've been a little disappointed
in the involvement(interest) of late.
-Melvin
I wonder how many interested observers of this list there are like
myself. I only wish I had the time experience/skill/knowledge to
contribute.
Keep up the
At 2:35 PM -0400 8/21/02, John Porter wrote:
Angel Faus wrote:
I am all for the creation of a new list for stuff such as imcc, and perl6
compilers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?)
I wonder if maybe perl6-internals should have been named parrot, anyway.
That would've required a bit of time-travel, as
c) imcc becomes a middle level language.
I never meant it to be an assembler. In practice
intermediate languages provide other constructs
such as aggregate type definition that are not
available in the assembler.
type i : packed int[32]
type r : record { foo : int, bar : string }
This
Melvin Smith wrote:
Sean, I'm replying publicly because I'd like to hear other opinions than
mine, yours, Angel's and Leopold's.
I'll answer here to Melvin's mail, but I'll try to make a summary of all
point's taken in this thread + some more.
I still prefer infix notation to prefix
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I don't understand why it is so hard to adopt. imcc is supposed to be
a step closer to higher level languages, which is why I went that way.
No problem here, it is called _intermediate_ ..., which is a worthful
step in code generation, but - as always - there is a
John Porter:
# languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot
# must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level
# languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I
Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot
features, therefore
Brent Dax wrote:
John Porter:
# languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot
# must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level
# languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I
Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot
At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
So please, first, let's consider the status quo, not the future.
Agree.
_SV_s1 = clone $P1
I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
What do you think?
-Melvin
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:15 PM 8/21/2002 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
_SV_s1 = clone $P1
I've considered changing '=' to mean clone, and add ':=' to imply set.
What do you think?
Heh. What's the universal sign for assign (as opposed to clone or
set)? Since
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I respectfully request that you guys make a lot more of your
discussions public?
I'd like to dispel rumors of a vast off-list conspiracy. I've been taking
and discussing patches to languages/perl6 from a couple of people (hi,
Leo) off-list,
This is what you'll need. It uses dlopen(), and is likely Bad in a number
of other ways, but if you're on a fairly normal UNIX, it should allow imcc
to grok what P6C produces for regexes.
/s
? languages/imcc/a.out
? languages/imcc/anyop.c
? languages/imcc/anyop.h
? languages/imcc/a.pasm
?
25 matches
Mail list logo
