Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/

2001-01-29 Thread David Mitchell
Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's > "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be > salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?! > Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over

Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/

2001-01-29 Thread David Mitchell
> Perhaps you meant that Perl 6 is going to have homogeneous arrays, in > which case an array of ints would keep 32 bits (per value) of int data in > the array and auto-generate the extra flags and stuff when a value is > extracted from the array. That's possible, but it's a special case of small

Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/

2001-01-30 Thread David Mitchell
"Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, mandatory locking is something we should definetly NOT have in Perl6. > Most of perl's code today is not threaded, and I believe much of it will > continue to be this way. The pseudo-fork thread behaviour that is being > proposed also makes this ok. Eve

Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/

2001-01-30 Thread David Mitchell
"Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thing with mandatory locks per variable, is that as long as you only > want to access _that_ variable, it's ok, but if you want to make several > uses of several variables and want to do it all at once, you've got a > problem. [ big snip ] Sorry, I misu

Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM?

2001-01-31 Thread David Mitchell
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why can't we change the meaning of time() slightly without changing to a > different function name? Yes, it will silently break some existing code, > but that's OK -- remember, 90% with traslation, 75% without. being in that > middle 15% isn't a bad th

Re: Garbage collection (was Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/)

2001-02-14 Thread David Mitchell
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea is [for Larry] to declare "no, it isn't". Otherwise, you have to > do refcounting (or somthing like it) for DESTROY to get called at the right > time if the class (or any superclass) has an AUTOLOAD, which is expensive. I'm coming in halfway th

Re: Garbage collection (was Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/)

2001-02-14 Thread David Mitchell
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip about DESTORY predictablity not being neccessary] > You're probably right about that, Branden. Quite nice, but not neccessary. Hmm, I'd have to say that predictability is very, *very* nice, and we shouldnt ditch it unless we *really* have to. [ l