On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 06:58, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 2:08 PM +1300 3/7/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
> >As long as mechanisms are put in place to allow modules to bypass
> > object encapsulation and private/public constraints, and given that
> > Parrot will have no XS,
>
> It wouldn't be wise to jump from "
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:38:41PM +, Jason Gloudon wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Jason Gloudon
> # Please include the string: [perl #21508]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21508 >
>
>
>
> This ad
# New Ticket Created by Jason Gloudon
# Please include the string: [perl #21508]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=21508 >
This adds still more ops and re-organizes register use to avoid potential
conflicts in
At 2:08 PM +1300 3/7/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
As long as mechanisms are put in place to allow modules to bypass object
encapsulation and private/public constraints, and given that Parrot will
have no XS,
It wouldn't be wise to jump from "Parrot won't do perl 5's XS scheme"
to "Parrot won't have a way
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I don't have a docs/macros.pod. I guess my version of imcc is old (-:
The update your parrot please. A lot of these issues are documented and
solved.
For instance, in the interests of speed, it would be nice if perl6
builtins written in perl6 wou
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:48, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Over on perl6-internals you've been talking about the need for
> Associations. Is the addition of associations all that's missing from
> Parrot to support "exporting object relationships in a sensible and
> consistent manner"?
A prudent question.
