On Mon Jul 07 08:43:14 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this '\n' controlled? it is suposed to be an example or it is a bug?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/prg/parrot/languages/punie$ svn diff
> Index: demo.p1
>
AIL PROTECTED]/prg/parrot/languages/punie$ svn diff
Index: demo.p1
===
--- demo.p1 (revision 28059)
+++ demo.p1 (working copy)
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
print 2, "\n";
print 34, "\n";
print 5.6, "\n";
-print
chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 18:51, Shlomi Fish wrote:
(Although it seems the most interesting promises made by parrot - fast
typeless code for example - are not going to be delivered, too).
Hmmm I haven't been closely following Parrot.
Despite this menti
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 18:51, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > (Although it seems the most interesting promises made by parrot - fast
> > typeless code for example - are not going to be delivered, too).
> Hmmm I haven't been closely following Parrot.
Despite this mention, this thread is off-topic fo
H::T/Petal/etc., etc.). As such, while he
> > has a good intuition on what's missing in the core language, he's still
> > probably not making the full use of Perl 5's expressive power, much less
> > Perl 6's.
>
> Wouldn't outright agree to that (becau
with
Robert to see if we can get you access to the loaner Sun box (if we
still have it).
Allison
Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
The test file mentioned in the original report no longer exists: the
structure of punie has changed somewhat in the last
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> According to our records, your request regarding
> "[BUG] Punie test failures in set_node method on Solaris/SPARC"
> has been resolved.
>
> If you have any further questions or concerns, please respond to this messa
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> The test file mentioned in the original report no longer exists: the
> structure of punie has changed somewhat in the last 11 months.
>
> Can you please retest, and if you still have a problem, please open a
> new ticket.
I have
bit
in order to support Perl 6's binding operator (:=). Yes, the
generated code sometimes calls a clone when it doesn't need to --
this is going be handled by having PAST-pm keep track of which
PMCs are "temporaries" and thus available for re-use instead of
requiring cloning.
I've just checked in the modified Punie code that runs on the improved
compiler tools. I sent various comments to the list as I went through
the port, so I won't repeat them here. A few more comments from the end
of the porting process:
- I like the way PAST-pm handles conditionals
d Compilers:
* p6rules
Options:
--output=OUTFILE -- redirect output to OUTFILE
--help-- print this message
../../parrot -o PGE.pbc --output-pbc PGE.pir
Same behavior as the punie error already mentioned.
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #38775]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38775 >
Punie no longer builds:
$ make clean all
perl -MExtUtils::Command -e rm_f "t/
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #38691]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38691 >
Got the following backtrace working with a very slightly modified
snapshot of pu
past_op.t at line 30)
# got: ' => {
# 'source' => '42',
# 'pos' => '42',
# 'op' => 'bar',
# 'children' => [
# elements() not implemented in class 'PerlInt'
# current instr.: &
e
fairly
similar. It looks like 'node.set_node' doesn't actually end up doing
anything. So for t/past_2.pir, for example, we have
.sub _main
load_bytecode 'languages/punie/lib/PAST.pir'
.local pmc node
node = new 'PAST::Code'
$P0 = new PerlStri
hat allows punie to at least match 'print 1;' again...
Awesome. I've committed it in my local svk mirror, and will merge it
back in after the Sunday release.
But it still fails at runtime with:
get_pmc_keyed() not implemented in class 'PerlUndef'
current instr.: '
n's code.
Allison: this patch fixes a dependency issue in the makefile,
eliminates some deprecation issues, and corrects a small issue in the
grammar that allows punie to at least match 'print 1;' again...
But it still fails at runtime with:
get_pmc_keyed() not implemented in cl
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 0:37, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> >That's cool. In that case I'll commit the test suite from perl-1.0_16
> >as TODO tests to the Punie tree, if that's okay with you. :)
>
>
On Jul 12, 2005, at 0:37, Autrijus Tang wrote:
That's cool. In that case I'll commit the test suite from perl-1.0_16
as TODO tests to the Punie tree, if that's okay with you. :)
Most welcome. I'm following a naming convention in the t/ directory of
changing the origi
Autrijus Tang schrieb:
If the goal is to demonstrate the capability of the upcoming expression
parser and minimal AST, I think "bc", the arbitrary precision calculator
language, is a good candidate.
Indeed it is. The nice thing about 'bc' is that is fairly simple, but
still has variables and
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
needs trunk rev 8598 for some added NCI signatures in src/call_list.txt.
or branches/leo-ctx5 r8599.
leo
Allison Randal wrote:
I'd like to add Punie to the Parrot repository.
Great. And for more fun I've created the basics of a NCI interface [1]
for ast functions. Heavily underdocumented and unfinished (as of an hour
hacking time ;-), but maybe someone takes it over and continues it.
x27;d like to push it as close to
> supporting the full Perl 1 test suite as possible.
That's cool. In that case I'll commit the test suite from perl-1.0_16
as TODO tests to the Punie tree, if that's okay with you. :)
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpVwtL58KF40.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 11, 2005, at 21:41, Autrijus Tang wrote:
Cool! However, I wonder if Punie is indeed targetting Perl 1.
As Schwern will attest, Perl 1 is a quite complicated language, with
nullary, unary, binary and ternary functions, arrays, hashes, pattern
matches, transliteration, format, loop
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:41:00PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> Is it Punie's goal to support all of those semantic constructs? If not,
> maybe call it something else than Perl 1, to avoid confusion? :)
(more bikesheding)
If the goal is to demonstrate the capability of the upcoming expression
p
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:35:11PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> I'd like to add Punie to the Parrot repository. It's a first step
> toward a compiler for Perl 1 running on Parrot. Currently it's *very*
> simple: it only parses and compiles a single statement printing
I'd like to add Punie to the Parrot repository. It's a first step
toward a compiler for Perl 1 running on Parrot. Currently it's *very*
simple: it only parses and compiles a single statement printing a
single digit -- but it uses PGE grammars and the stub in ast/ to do it.
27 matches
Mail list logo
