Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-30 Thread Sean O'Rourke
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Melvin Smith wrote: > I think of Parrot as a CPU. When we have adequately designed the CPU, > people don't need new ops. I think of it as a VAX, in which case "adequately designed" means "just a few microcode ops" ;). /s

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-30 Thread Melvin Smith
Dan wrote: >At 10:43 AM -0400 7/29/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >>At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: >>The VM and assembler does not need to provide every operator as >>an new 'op'. Eventually, languages with funky operators need to start thinking >>about implementing them as methods or

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-30 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:43 AM -0400 7/29/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: >>[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character >>operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII, >>but it helps), state their name, and

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-29 Thread Eric Kidder
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: > [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character > operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII, > but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether > listop, binop

RE: we need more ops.

2002-07-29 Thread gregor
How about (with a tip o' th' hat to DEK): SWYM (Sympathize With Your Machinery) -- Gregor

RE: we need more ops.

2002-07-29 Thread Marc M. Adkins
> [Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy > three character > operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not > necessarily ASCII, > but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose > (including whether > listop, binop, uniop, precedence, associativity or w

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-29 Thread Melvin Smith
At 10:45 AM 7/29/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: >[Maybe we should have a competition to suggest the most crazy three character >operator - ie state your sequence of three characters (not necessarily ASCII, >but it helps), state their name, and state their purpose (including whether >listop, bin

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-29 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 06:59:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept > > > at all is questionable -- there's no w

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-28 Thread Sean O'Rourke
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept > > at all is questionable -- there's no way to get at it syntactically from > > would be a regexp match. In effe

Re: we need more ops.

2002-07-28 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:50PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote: > Whether plain cmp (as a vtable function or an op on PMCs) should be kept > at all is questionable -- there's no way to get at it syntactically from > Perl or any other language that has separate numeric and string > comparisons. It

we need more ops.

2002-07-27 Thread Sean O'Rourke
Two problems: - As things stand currently, there's no way to get to the cmp_num and cmp_string vtable methods from parrot assembly. - The cmp() method/op is completely useless for Perl, since Perl comparison operators force their operands to be interpreted as either strings or numbers. As thing