Hello all,
Maybe some of you remember how I used to have endless hours in Berlin
to fiddle with Parrot documentation. Then I got a job, moved back to
London, and disappeared.
I can't say I have been following the list closely, but I have read the
occasional summary from time to time. I'm out
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
I read that as expressions are evaluated once, not PMC's are accessed
once. So something like
2 $i++ 23
will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
temporary.
I don't see that. $i++ increments the original PMC.
2 $i+1 23
At 06:41 PM 7/30/2002 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
I read that as expressions are evaluated once, not PMC's are accessed
once. So something like
2 $i++ 23
will do the expected -- increment $i once, keeping the result in a PMC
temporary.
I don't see that.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just once.
That argues for moving the values to N or S registers.
I read that as expressions are evaluated once, not PMC's are
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
And if you've tied a variable to have side effects every time it's
accessed, you shouldn't care if the results are unpredictable.
s/tied a variable/implemented a type/. Argh.
/s
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:08:46AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just once.
That argues for moving the values to N or S
At 7:28 PM +0100 7/30/02, Graham Barr wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:08:46AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I need to get Larry to nail some things down. On the one hand, he's
said that chained comparisons evaluate their parameters just once.
And I'll be digging through the backlog of mail. On the top 'o the
list is keys, defining the extension mechanism, and the exception
infrastructure. We'll go from there.
In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
like cmps Ix, Py, Pz? Also, would num-comparisons be
At 8:13 PM -0700 7/29/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
In the mean time, someone can go ahead and implement the cmps and
cmpi ops to do string and integer compares respectively.
Do you mean {gt,ge,eq,ne,le,lt}{s,n} conditional branches, or something
like
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If I thought anyone'd do control flow with it, I'd have a version of
the op for that, but I don't think we're going to see that, and perl
doesn't do it, so...
Okay, writing this email has convinced me that maybe we don't need these
ops. If Perl's
11 matches
Mail list logo
