On Monday 02 April 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:06:34AM +0300, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hi Marc!
> >
> > May I forward my reply to the list?
>
> Yes, you may. Sorry for replying probably too late, thanks for askin
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:42 PM +0200 3/15/02, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >Does this correspond with the general Parrot philosophy? Any
> >other objections?
>
> Did you look at PDD 6? Most of this is already spec'd out.
>
You mean "PDD 6: Parro
s gets a bit messier when we assume that variables can be referenced by
either their names or IDs and that they can store either INTs, strings or
other PMCs. Nevertheless, I'd like to try and write an ad-hoc
implementation for Parrot.
Does this correspond with the general Parrot philosophy? Any
oth
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> Shlomi Fish:
> # Question: why can't we link against GNU's GMP to provide us
> # with those big
> # number facilities? Is there any reason we need to re-invent the wheel?
> # (except to make Parrot self-contained and non depen
Question: why can't we link against GNU's GMP to provide us with those big
number facilities? Is there any reason we need to re-invent the wheel?
(except to make Parrot self-contained and non dependent on anything else,
which, IMO, is not a very good cause)
Regards,
S
quot; or something of this vain. ), etc.
We probably should figure out what kind of multimethods are commonly used
in the languages we plan Parrot to be suitable for, and in perl6, and
decide what to have according to this. The user can complement the rest in
user-land.[1]
Regards,
Shlomi
RROT_UNUSED.
The recommended use of this header would only be internally, and it won't
be included by any of the headers that the library would require.
Of course, PARROT can be replaced with PRT or with any other prefix.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
>
--
---
to be implemented?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If:
1. A is A
2. A is not not-A
does it imply
-defined mechanisms and/or optimizations in Parrot to do so.
For instance, we can have a "ret-with-call" opcode. However, isn't it
exactly the same as a jump instruction ?
What is the current stance on implementing proper tail recursion in perl6?
Regards,
