Perl

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • S29 proposed revision

    1 answers - 3393 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    Larry (bless his wire-photographing heart) took the time to re-vamp S29.
    course, this threw off all of my collating of S29, but that's fine
    since he's actually answered more of my questions than I could have
    hoped.
    The fourth of July weekend was fairly slow for me, so I started with
    Larry's S29 and went forward.
    My first pass at a revised S29 is attached. This is a combination of
    some of what was left from my original work, some suggested changes to
    Larry's version, and some newly incorporated bits. Where possible I'm
    footnoting the summary or mailing list and message ID that my changes
    are based on. There's a lot more of the mailing-list based work to go,
    but before someone overhauls S29 again, I thought I should make some of
    my work public. My diff is against pugs/docs/Perl6/Spec circa revision
    11216.
    A quick summary for discussion:
    vs. Functions
    Before Larry's update, I had decided that simple functions and term:'s
    were the only things that made sense for S29, even though EVERYTHING is
    really a function. I've codified this as part of the intro. Thoughts?
    Removing code
    I've begun the process of removing some of the code from S29. It's not
    that code is bad, it's just that it's not actually documentation. To
    that end, I'm writing real documentation for functions like sign and
    sqrt instead of example implementations.
    Constants as functions
    Since this is S29, I think it makes sense to unify every entry with a
    leading subroutine/function signature, not to use the otherwise very
    nice and convenient C<constant type type::namenotation. To this end,
    I've re-written constants as C<our type multi term:type::<name()>
    which I assert means the exact same thing (please correct me if that
    assertion fails). course the implementation might use C<constant>,
    but the documentation doesn't have to agree with the implementation
    details as long as it agrees with the implementation interface.
    TD
    Two major TD sections were in there: defined/undefine/want/caller and
    fork/lock/wait/waitpid. I moved all of these into the body of the
    Summary and defined defined, undefine, fork and wait. I left the body of
    want and caller as TD, and put lock and waitpid in the
    section (per S17 Draft and the simple fact that waitpid is no longer
    required).
    For wait I've defined a new object called Conc::Proc::Status (no more
    bit shifting, yay!) and some behavior of S17's Conc::Proc which is
    probably fine, but others should look it over. If this is K, some notes
    should probably be added back into S17 as well.
    There are some notes on waitpid in Perl 5's perlfunc, which probably
    need to be moved into S29, but some analysis of parrot's wait facilities
    will be required to be sure how they play in.
    word to your macro
    Larry proposed word as an operator a while back. This is one of the
    (many) things that was in my note bin for transcription. Let me know if
    this is still relevant.
    word probably violates my intro on the scope of the document, but it's a
    pretty strange one, so I don't think anyone's going to complain too
    much.
  • No.1 | | 310 bytes | |

    Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:09 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:

    The fourth of July weekend was fairly slow for me, so I started with
    Larry's S29 and went forward.

    My first pass at a revised S29 is attached.

    I already see one problem. "as" slipped in, which is an operator, not a
    function.

Re: S29 proposed revision


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 1 + 1 =
QUESTION ON "Perl"

EMSDN.COM