On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 04:52:26PM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> $x = 1 if my $x;
>
> The compiler is "allowed" to complain, but does that means it's also
> okay to not die fatally, and recover by pretending as if the user has
> said this?
>
> # Current Pugs behaviour
> $OUTER::x =
在 2006/6/24 上午 8:41 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
because later in the scope $x may be declared, so it's safer to just
put OUTER right there.
I don't think $x can be declared later in the scope. According to
S04,
If you've referred to $x prior to the first declaration,
and the compiler
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:41:44AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 08:03:47AM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> > 2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to write in than
> > >C?
> > >If yes, is it logical t
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 08:03:47AM -0700, Audrey Tang wrote:
> 2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to write in than
> >C?
> >If yes, is it logical to write opcodes such as this one in Parrot assembler
> >itself?
>
> Err, well
2006/6/24, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:03PM -0700, Matt Diephouse wrote:
[Parrot assembler implementation]
> Of course, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like an opcode to do it for
> me. :-)
Is Parrot assembler considered a more productive language to writ
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:43:03PM -0700, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> While you can't do this with find_lex currently, you *can* do it. Tcl
> walks the lexpads to find lexicals. (See
> languages/tcl/runtime/variables.pir):
[Parrot assembler implementation]
> Of course, that doesn't mean that I would
在 2006/6/23 下午 1:31 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
I interpret the first sentence as meaning that the "MY" pseudo-package
refers to all of the symbols in the current lexical scope, not
just those that have been explicitly declared in the current scope
using "my".
Same interpretation here, as S02 say
jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
my $x = $OUTER::x;
or
my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
i propose this should be specified using a thr
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:16:22PM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> > audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> > to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> > OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>
On 6/23/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
indeed.
my $x = 3; { { say $OUTER::x} }# 3
of course that should be
my $x = 3; { { say $OUTER::OUTER::x} }# 3
On 6/23/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>my $x = $OUTE
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:27:04AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
> to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
> OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
>my $x = $OUTER::x;
> or
>my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
So OUTER:: is a -st
audreyt++ pointed out on #parrot that there doesn't seem to be a way
to specify where to start finding lexicals, in support of perl's
OUTER::. eg. (from S04):
my $x = $OUTER::x;
or
my $x = OUTER::<$x>;
i propose this should be specified using a three-arg form of find_lex
where the third
13 matches
Mail list logo
