On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Perl 6 perlplexities
Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of
Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the
complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6
pa
I have released "Amber for Parrot" version 0.3.1 (Magic cookies):
Downloads: http://xamber.org/download.html
Release history: http://xamber.org/history.html
Project home page: http://xamber.org/index.html
"Amber for Parrot" is an Eiffel-like scripting language for the Parrot
Virtual Machine.
Cha
On Nov 15, 2005, at 17:24, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
"string_bitwise_*"
Leo, it seems to boil down to a choice between throwing an
exception or
simply mashing everything together and marking the 'resulting bit
mess'
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:17:30AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Autrijus mentioned on #parrot that we'd need weak pointers at some
> time. Then we can reconsider callframe PMCs.
Ah, weak pointers. I remember a time without weak pointers. It was a
happy time. Birds chirped in the trees
Will Coleda wrote:
Right, the hard bit here was that I needed to specify something other
than "file". Just agreeing that we need something other than just
"file/line".
I'd have thought the onus is the other way: justify the use of
"file/line" as the primitive concept.
We're going to have
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 16:24 +, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
> ...Roger Browne (whose name I keep wanting to use as a Clerihew)...
Thanks for the summaries, Piers! Here's a Clerihew for you:
Roger Browne
took his Parrot to town
Wearing an upside-down
Amber crown >:)
How to w
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:19:49PM +0100, Florian Ragwitz wrote:
> After I've collected enough informations I'll start implementing the
> necessary changes. I hope it'll be done by the end of this week. I'm not
> sure how I should handle that though. I guess it might break parrot
> building for a w
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
Welcome to another fortnight's worth of summary. We'll get back to a
weekly schedule one of these fine days, you see if we don't.
This fortnight in perl6-compiler
There was a surprisingly large amount of activity on the list, but
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #37684]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37684 >
It would be somewhat helpful if parrot supported an option like
perl's -c that verifie
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> I'd much more prefer that a compiler (amber anyone ;) just emits PIR
> with debug syntax so that folks get a feeling how it looks like...
OK, I've done this.
I have modified the Amber compiler to generate PIR code that contains
debug directives, so that we can discuss a
"Francois PERRAD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This patch is required for pbc_merge on some platforms (HP-UX is the
>one that I see it on), particularly when creating tcllib.
Same problem on Win32, but this patch doesn't solve it with MinGW.
Yup, I know about this problem. We shouldn't be loa
Tonight on #parrot:
03:15 <@mdiep> meaning that imcc doesn't know it's being feed utf8
instead of ascii
03:16 <@Coke> mdiep: B***it. it knows the encoding of the string.
*) Parrot's compilers take plain old C-strings and don't know anything
about the charset/encoding of the string - but read
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>
> >Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
> >
> >That's an advantage for the week it take
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:07:55PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 2005, at 0:02, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> >
> >>* I'm thinking of a PIR syntax along the lines of this:-
> >
> >The discussion goes forth and back, like all other di
At 08:08 10/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Nick Glencross
# Please include the string: [perl #37651]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37651 >
This patch is required for pbc_merge on some pl
On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
For the remaining age of the universe,
Err, I didn'
On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:28, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:33:07AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
OK, call frame as PMC looks like a non-starter. Consider it rescinded.
Autrijus mentioned on #parrot that we'd need weak pointers at some
time. Then we can reconsider callfra
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
>
> Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
Jonathan
leo
19 matches
Mail list logo
