On 4/15/05, Shevek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can dropping a privilege for the duration of a (dynamic) scope be
implemented? Does this need to be implemented via a parrot intrinsic,
such as:
without_privs(list_of_privs, code_to_be_run_without_these_privs);
..or is it possible to
Dan,
On 4/13/05, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All security is done on a per-interpreter basis. (really on a
per-thread basis, but since we're one-thread per interpreter it's
essentially the same thing)
Just to get me back on track: Does this mean that when you spawn a
thread, a
You could change the GC scheme (*cough*) to use one similar to
Python's (ref-counting + additional GC for cyclic references
*double-cough*).
Out-of-this-world-ly yours,
Michael
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:40:43 -0700, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hildo Biersma writes:
If the number of
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Michael Walter wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it useful? not really. does it help you waste 5 minutes of your day?
certainly. :)
Waiting for the request to time out indeed wasted some idle time
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:07:43 -0500 (EST), Jeff Horwitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it useful? not really. does it help you waste 5 minutes of your day?
certainly. :)
Waiting for the request to time out indeed wasted some idle time :-)
wink-ingly yours,
Michael
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:46:24 -0700, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch writes:
This term came up in a recent discussion[1]. But I'd like to give this
term a second meaning.
Except what you're talking about here is premature *optimzation*.
Yes, indeed.
Cheers,
Michael
Uh, C89 is an ANSI/ISO C.
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+void init () {
+SUPER();
+PMC *func_args = pmc_new(INTERP, dynclass_PyList);
Please be careful to
Hey,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:33:27 -0500, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strong typing can be more clearly seen in something like haskell where
you can define a function
len [] = 0
len [ _ | A ] = 1 + len A
Actually, in Haskell this would be:
len [] = 0
len (_:a) = 1 + len a
the
I've no idea, but the GHC team recently changed their backend from gcc
to c--, so maybe that has potential?
It would certainly be interesting to see how interopability is handled.
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:47:05 +, Richard Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 Dec 2004, at 14:33,
Hey,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:33:33 +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, the implementation of IronPython [1] shows that it's quite
possible to run some kind of Python on the CLR infrastructure.
Python is kind of easy to port over to CLR, because it has no
continuations -
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:59:48 +0100, Stéphane Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:34:57AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Cameron Zemek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that oddball control flow constructs like closures are
proper to dynamic languages. For
There is also such thing as premature pessimization. I'm not in the
position to judge whether it is appropriate in this case, though.
Back-to-reading-mode-ly yours,
Michael
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:59:39 +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I've been trying a lot to implement a Lua compiler (version 5), but I'm
seriously stuck on generating code for assignments (it's not as simple
as it seems, but then again, I may be thinking in the wrong direction;
for
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:19:01 -0500, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which gives me an evil idea. We could allow bytecode to specify that
it wanted to start taking full continuations everywhere, but that
these would never be used below it on the callstack. Thus the regex
engine could do
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:30:16 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tail calls should be explicit, compile-time things. Otherwise we're
going to run afoul of traceback requirements and suchlike things, and
I think that's just not worth the risk and hassle. Besides, it's a
lot easier in
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:59:06 +0100, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Above is *without* tail calls. The next one was with tail calls, and it
obviously did succeed, because tail calls do not contribute to any kind
of stack depth. So there is for sure no limit. It's the same as an
Scheme is a counterexample, it supports both mandatory tail calls
continuations.
I've no idea how stuff is implemented in Parrot, but an obvious idea
would be to have some kind of lazy copying scheme (i.e. maintain a
reference count for the stack frames copy the respective one before
mutating
I sense confusion between closure, continuation and coroutine.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContinuationExplanation
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContinuationsAndCoroutines
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CoRoutine
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LexicalClosure
Cheers,
Michael
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:11:07 +0100, Klaas-Jan
gensym, hehe. History repeats ;-)
- Michael
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:49:22 -0400, William Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A macro example in the docs shows:
.macro swap (A,B,TEMP) # . marks the directive
set .TEMP,.A # . marks the special variable.
set .A,.B
set
http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/programming/metaclasses.pdf
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:45:50 -0400, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, color me officially confused. I'm working on the assumption
that metaclasses are needed, but I don't, as yet, understand them.
So, with this bit of
20 matches
Mail list logo
