Who is the keeper of the FAQ? This is gold.
--Josh
--- Forwarded Messages
Date:Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:35:05 -0800
From:"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: How Powerful Is Parrot?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# I've been watching the P
On Thursday 24 January 2002 14:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
> questions about Parrots capabilities.
Brent and Dan have already answered, so I'm going to be so foolish as to
answer, too.
>Will Parrot support operator ov
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Correct, especially a list is nothing but a pair with another pair or
>> an end-of-list-marker in its second element. To implement set-car! and
>> set-cdr! both elements of this pair must be mutable
DS> Hmmm. I think we can use on
At 8:12 PM +0100 1/24/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>' op in Apo 3) ??
>>
>>DS> Good point. it probably is, yes. (Though there may be potential
>>DS> differences--depends on whether the s
At 1:49 PM -0500 1/24/02, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>The following line in interpreter.c
>
> interpreter->perl_stash = pmc_new(interpreter, enum_class_PerlHash);
>
>is now causing Solaris 8/Sun Workshop cc to throw the following error:
>(reformatted for clarity)
D'oh! Thinko. I'll fix.
--
At 10:08 PM +0100 1/24/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > According to this document the set_p_n_i notation would be wrong. But
>> > I already heard that the index-system is a moving target.
>>
>> In this case, I'd prefer you trusted the documentation.
[Brent's answered some of these already, but I'll fill in the blanks.
Also some of the answers presume a fully-implemented engine, which we
don't have yet]
At 2:52 PM -0500 1/24/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
>questions about
Thanks Brent.
# #Does Parrot have garbage collection?
# Not yet, but it will.
When it does, I'd ask that there be some sort of option on what type of
garbage collection is used. This is because different methods of garbage
collection have very different characteristics.
For example, refer
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > According to this document the set_p_n_i notation would be wrong. But
> > I already heard that the index-system is a moving target.
>
> In this case, I'd prefer you trusted the documentation. :)
Which one parrot_assembly.pod or core_ops.pod? They are
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
# questions about Parrots capabilities.
#
#Will Parrot support templates (also known as generics)?
If you mean like C++ templates, then the answer is that it's up to the
language. There won't be anyth
I've been watching the Parrot development with interest and have a few
questions about Parrots capabilities.
Will Parrot support templates (also known as generics)?
Will Parrot support operator overloading?
Do Parrot classes have constructors and destructors?
Does Parrot have garbage
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:23 PM 1/24/2002 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > * Introduce a new register-type for Keys.
> >
> >No, I don't think this is the right way.
>
> Just a question, what is the status of the Scheme parser. Is it
> even ready to generate code for worki
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>' op in Apo 3) ??
>
> DS> Good point. it probably is, yes. (Though there may be potential
> DS> differences--depends on whether the scheme pair can only have scalars
> DS> on each side, o
The following line in interpreter.c
interpreter->perl_stash = pmc_new(interpreter, enum_class_PerlHash);
is now causing Solaris 8/Sun Workshop cc to throw the following error:
(reformatted for clarity)
"interpreter.c", line 534: warning: assignment type mismatch:
pointer to struct S
At the moment, the assembler doesn't seem to like single character
labels. For instance, this code:
bsr aa
print "Didn't branch \n"
end
aa: print "Branched \n"
end
prints "Branched", as one would expect, but this code:
bsr a
print "Didn't br
At 05:23 PM 1/24/2002 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > * Introduce a new register-type for Keys.
>
>No, I don't think this is the right way.
Just a question, what is the status of the Scheme parser. Is it even
ready to generate code for working with these constructs? Maybe work top
down on this on
At 06:11 PM 1/24/2002 +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>I've no idea which is the best way to go. The Pair-Implementation just
>needs one way to get a PMC-value of an (constant) index.
>
>I will delay my patch until this issue is solved
Maybe you could bang on this issue and work out a good solutio
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
> > pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
> > accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
>
> I
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>code destination, dest_key, source1, source1_key, source2, source2_key
>
> The key parameters are optional, and may be either an integer or a
> string. [...] Any time a source or destination can be a PMC register,
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To implement nested pairs its nessary to introduce 2 new vtable functions
> > and the acompaning core.ops to get and set the PMC value of the indexed
> > element. I choosed set_p_p_i and set_p_i_p. The later one is inconsistent
> > with indexed set op
At 11:32 AM 01-24-2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
>>> accessed,
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
>> accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
>
>Is
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
> accessed, as a restricted array, one with only two entries.
Is this then the same datatype as a Perl6 pair (cf '=>'
From interpreter.h:
INTVAL flags;/* Various
interpreter flagBut whBut what
that signal that runops
should do something */
I'd supply a patch, but I'm not
At 9:25 AM + 1/23/02, Alberto Manuel Brandao Simoes wrote:
> Hellows
>
> Can anybody give me a simple but complete explanation of the
>PMC register
>type? Thanks
Sure--a PMC register is, in C terms:
struct PMC *;
And the register set is just an array of PMC pointers. If tha
At 6:04 PM +0100 1/22/02, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Hello,
>
>some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
>implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
>am wondering what is the reason for this.
>
>Was the patch too long, or too outdated (I can resend a newer
At 12:59 PM -0500 1/22/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>At 06:04 PM 1/22/2002 +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
>>implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
>>am wondering what is the reason for this.
>
>Hi, I
At 11:47 PM + 1/22/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:54:59PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> The only problem I had with the patch was that I couldn't get it to
>> apply.
>
>Same here. I'd like to see it in Parrot.
>
>(I'm back, BTW, but with *lots* of catching up to do. You
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:57:49PM +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> Ok, here is the updated schemepair-patch.
Thanks for this, but I'm afraid I'm not going to apply it. The reason
being:
> To implement nested pairs its nessary to introduce 2 new vtable functions
> and the acompaning core.ops to
30 matches
Mail list logo
