Jeff G wrote:
>
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
> > I've just committed some changes after which Parrot will not compile.
> > This is quite deliberate. Basically, I'm trying to get the keyed stuff
> > working the way we want, and that requires some painful changes to the
> > source. The upshot is:
> >
At 6:59 PM + 2/10/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:08:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> The one downside to having continuations is it makes optimizing away
>> variables, even temp ones, a little tough--on switch to any code that
>> might create a continuation we need
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:08:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> The one downside to having continuations is it makes optimizing away
> variables, even temp ones, a little tough--on switch to any code that
> might create a continuation we need to flush out from registers to a
> holding area, and
At 1:37 AM +0200 2/9/02, raptor wrote:
>I was just reading this :
>
>http://www.javalobby.com/clr.html
>
>and a question raised to me. Will Parrot have some optimisation
>(features) that will speed up closures & continuation ?
Closures are a very fundamental thing in perl, and they've got to be
> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:19:26PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
> >Content-Description: Mail message body
> >> The following patch adds a Parrot_nosegfault() function
> >> to win32.c; after it is called, a segmentation fault will print
> >> "This p
At 12:54 AM -0500 2/10/02, Melvin Smith wrote:
>I know globals are still on the todo, but what is the plan for the
>operands of these opcodes? I see PMC examples, but will
>we also have versions of these for the native int, string and number
>Parrot types?
Nope, I'm not planning on that. We can a
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 07:19:26PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
>Content-Description: Mail message body
>> The following patch adds a Parrot_nosegfault() function
>> to win32.c; after it is called, a segmentation fault will print
>> "This process recei
