RFC 120 (v3) Implicit counter in for statements, possibly $. by Perl6 RFC Librarian- September 20, 2000 This and other RFCs are available on the web at http:dev.perl.orgrfc=head1 TITLEImplicit counter in for statements, possibly $.=head1 VERSION Maintainer: John McNamara <jmcnamaracpan.org> Date: 16 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 20 Sep 2000 Mailing List: perl6-language-flowperl.org Number: 120 Version: 3 Status: Frozen=head1 ABSTRACTThe syntax of the Perl style C<for> statement could be augmented by theintroduction of an implicit counter variable. The deprecated variable...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg323.html rfc47 (was Re: A common event loop) by Uri Guttman- September 19, 2000 >>>>> "DLN" == David L Nicol <davidkasey.umkc.edu> writes: DLN> This too is something that would be very easy to do in DLN> everything-is-an-exception world. All events throw "EVENT-whatever" DLN> exceptions, and there you are.and how do you dispatch on those events an event loop should allow forregistration of callbacks so you don&39;t have to write your owndispatcher. see rfc47 for my mega outline of async (to be renamed advanced) IO...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg322.html Re: A common event loop by David L. Nicol- September 19, 2000 This too is something that would be very easy to do ineverything-is-an-exception world. All events throw "EVENT-whatever"exceptions, and there you are.-- David Nicol 816.235.1187 nicoldumkc.eduhttp://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg321.html Re: A common event loop by Peter Scott- September 19, 2000 At 03:40 AM 91900 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:>As I understand it, there is currently no agreed upon common event>loop architecture in Perl. This means that if two event-based modules>are used together (say, Net::IRC and POE) the one who&39;s main loop>starts up first will win.>>So the question I put to you all is, would it make sense for Perl to>have a common event loop from which all other modules can then draw,>thus avoiding the current state of...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg320.html Re: A common event loop by Uri Guttman- September 19, 2000 >>>>> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <schwernpobox.com> writes: MGS> As I understand it, there is currently no agreed upon common event MGS> loop architecture in Perl. This means that if two event-based modules MGS> are used together (say, Net::IRC and POE) the one who&39;s main loop MGS> starts up first will win. MGS> So the question I put to you all is, would it make sense for Perl to MGS> have a common event loop from which all other...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg319.html A common event loop by Michael G Schwern- September 19, 2000 As I understand it, there is currently no agreed upon common eventloop architecture in Perl. This means that if two event-based modulesare used together (say, Net::IRC and POE) the one who&39;s main loopstarts up first will win.So the question I put to you all is, would it make sense for Perl tohave a common event loop from which all other modules can then draw,thus avoiding the current state of conflict Or will a stablethreading implementation provide the equivalentPS This seemed like the...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg318.html Re: Final draft of RFC 120: Implicit counter in for statements by Bart Lateur- September 18, 2000 On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:11:28 +0100, John McNamara wrote:> foreach $item (array) > print $item, " is at index ", $, "n";> Maybe I&39;m a little late... But I just thought how neat it would be ifthis would also extend to map() and grep().Remember, officially the processing order of the items for map() andgrep() isn&39;t layed down in stone. So an independent running counter withan external variable ($i++) is a bit of a no-no. This loop counterwould,...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg317.html Final draft of RFC 120: Implicit counter in for statements by John McNamara- September 18, 2000 The following is intended as a draft of the final draft of RFC 120 "Implicit counter in for statements, possibly $".It includes summarised alternatives based on discussions in this list. It is not intended that this post should revive these discussions. It is a chance for the contributing parties to confirm that their suggestions have been fairly represented.Look out for RFC 1357: "Refract: A meta RFC language". Anyone who cares to debate the usefulness of a RFC definition...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg316.html RFC 178 (v4) Lightweight Threads by Perl6 RFC Librarian- September 11, 2000 This and other RFCs are available on the web at http:dev.perl.orgrfc=head1 TITLELightweight Threads=head1 VERSION Maintainer: Steven McDougall <swmcdworld.std.com> Date: 30 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 11 Sep 2000 Mailing List: perl6-language-flowperl.org Number: 178 Version: 4 Status: Developing=head1 ABSTRACTA lightweight thread model for Perl.=over 4=item All threads see the same compiled subroutines=item All threads share the same global variables=item Threads can create...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg315.html Re: RFC 178 (v3) Lightweight Threads by Chaim Frenkel- September 8, 2000 >>>>> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <perl6-rfcperl.org> writes:PRL> Otherwise, programmers will forever be guessing (wrong) about whatPRL> exactly they can rely on the interpreter for.PRL> This RFC proposes that the boundary be placed at I<data coherence>.PRL> Data coherence means that primitive operations in Perl always producePRL> a result that could be obtained if the operation executed atomically.Make that each thread executed in serial...http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language.flow/2000/09/msg314.html |