What would be the expected output from the following?
my $a = foo();
my $b;
{
my $x = 1;
sub get_x() { return $x; }
sub foo() { return &get_x; }
$b = foo();
}
my $c = foo();
say "a: ", $a();
say "b: ", $b();
say "c: ", $c();
As
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:47:32PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:35AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > > On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > > Short answer: cloning i
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:35AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > > Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
> > >
> > > for 1..10 -> $x {
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, NotFound via RT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
>> solve this problem?
>
> I'd say we'd need a passing test to close this
9 days and no complaints; done.
-- Bob
2008-07-12 17:28:24:
revision: 29361; author: rgrjr
[CORE] Make Emacs coda read-only in generated files (part of #37664).
=> /trunk/MAN
From: Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:46:19 -0400
. . . I will add [recursive-lex.pir] as a "todo" case, so we can be
sure that *that* also continues to work.
As promised, with badlex.pir and Jonathan's PIR case.
-- Bob
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, NotFound via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
> solve this problem?
>
>
I'd say we'd need a passing test to close this out. =-)
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:06:33 -0500
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:30:02AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
> (And I still don't understand the *point* of cloning a closure.)
. . .
Longer answer: Assume under my proposal that we don't have
imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
solve this problem?
The const string bug has been solved, so this patch is less useful.
Also, some benchmarking shows no significant improvements.
So, ticket rejected.
Applied in r29356 with modified and enhanced test.
--
Salu2
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:01:09AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I'm not entirely certain if any of the following
: examples with adverbial blocks would also work. I'm guessing
: they do, but could use confirmation.
:
: sort @a, :{ $^a <=> $^b };
: sort @a :{ $^a <=> $^b };
: so
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:27:26PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> S29 doesn't show a 'sort' method defined on block/closure
>> invocants... should there be?
>
> I doubt that. And to my eyes it looks funny. Only real block
> methods should be useful and since the class
On Sat Jul 12 09:33:35 2008, coke wrote:
>
> Another solution here would be to not run them by default. The purpose
> of 'make test'
> should be to verify that the parrot functionality works on the target
> system.
If speed is your concern, you can call 'make coretest'. We've had that
functional
Author: larry
Date: Sat Jul 12 10:50:57 2008
New Revision: 14562
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
[S04] small clarification to whether named subs are really closures
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed Jul 09 18:57:43 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Since I closed this ticket in January, more code has been added.
>> Tonight, while writing unit tests for internal subroutine
>> _handle_ncurses_need(), I noti
On Wed Jul 09 18:57:43 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since I closed this ticket in January, more code has been added.
> Tonight, while writing unit tests for internal subroutine
> _handle_ncurses_need(), I noticed the following lines:
>
> if ( $osname =~ /mswin32/i ) {
> if ( $cc =
On Tue Jul 08 22:59:40 2008, particle wrote:
> the configure tests take too much time to run, and should be sped up
> by whatever means necessary so as to take a much smaller percentage of
> the overall time for the test suite.
Another solution here would be to not run them by default. The purpose
On Saturday 12 July 2008 01:07:20 chromatic wrote:
> Obviously all Closures need valid captured contexts, but we have a big
> problem when attempting to invoke a named Closure before attaching its
> captured context. In Perl 5 terms, this is the relevant code:
>
> {
> my $
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
> >
> > for 1..10 -> $x {
> > sub foo() { say $x; }
> > push(@foos, &foo);
> > }
On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
>
> for 1..10 -> $x {
> sub foo() { say $x; }
> push(@foos, &foo);
> }
Is that really valid Perl 6 code? I can see "my sub foo" working there, b
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:30:02AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
> ... But, as I quoted you:
>
> . . . if cloning works the same as newclosure than we don't need
> an explicit newclosure . . .
>
> Which seems to say something entirely different. So I thought I should
> point out that clon
# New Ticket Created by NotFound
# Please include the string: [perl #56868]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=56868 >
This is another attempt to add a Parrot_string_empty function to
replace a lot of CONST_STRI
Closing ticket
fperraud fixed an issue in lib/Parrot/Docs/Section/C.pm in r29329
Closing ticket
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Will Coleda via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems to have been warnocked. I have no problem with renaming this
> executable. Anyone care to comment on the suggested name,
> 'pbc_disassemble' ?
I don't have any particular problem, although I think it might
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 01:07:20AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > And again, under my proposal I've been saying (apparently
> > ineffectively) that "autoclose" would be gone entirely, and
> > invoking a Closure that hasn't already had its context captured
> > (i.e, outer_ctx is NULL) will throw an exc
Hi,
the July 2008 release of Parrot will be most likely Parrot 0.6.4.
It will take place on tuesday, July 15th.
So, as usual, try to not break the build and the tests.
Updates to NEWS, CREDITS, PLATFORMS, RESPONSIBLE_PARTIES and
LANGUAGES_STATUS are appreciated very much.
Please add the open i
On Friday 11 July 2008 20:59:05 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> You're _completely_ missing my point. If we follow my proposal
> to modify Parrot or code generation such that a capture operation
> is performed for closures at the beginning of every outer sub
> invocation, then by the time we get to a
29 matches
Mail list logo
