Automated smoke report for 5.9.2 patch 24022
kirk.peters.homeunix.org: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.00GHz (GenuineIntel
1994MHz) (i686/1 cpu)
onlinux - 2.6.10-1.770_FC3 [fedora]
using cc version 3.4.2 20041017 (Red Hat 3.4.2-6.fc3)
smoketime 5 hours 23 minutes (average 20 minu
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:16:03PM +0100, demerphq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:> I guess Im confused by what this means. Why should removing whitespace
:> be any different from any other patch that might be applied? I assume
:> im missing something relevent t
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:50:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:26:25PM +, Nigel Sandever wrote:
> > > The backwards compatibility argument is bunk: we can do exactly what was
> > I wouldn't care if it was called 'println' except that it adds two
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:26:25PM +, Nigel Sandever wrote:
> > The backwards compatibility argument is bunk: we can do exactly what was
> > done
> > for err() and lock(). Use a weak keyword. Any existing routine called
> > say()
> > will continue to work as before.
>
> I'm not sure that i
D> Have you considered trying doing this sort of feedback and commentary
D> for Perl 6, where these fundamentals are more actively being developed
D> and hence more open to feedback? Just a thought.
$ apt-cache policy perl
perl:
Installed: 5.8.4-6
i.e., "your suggestion, though well intended, do
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:58:58 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) wrote:
> There is a middle ground here.
>
> I'm honestly leaning slighty towards say(). Sure it does nothing terribly
> impressive, but it does make the code slightly closer to what the user wants
> to do without an interme
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:58:58PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> So that said, I'd wait to see if Perl6::Say starts showing up as a
> dependency in people's modules before I'd put it in the language.
> Give it the ol CPAN test to see if its really going to be useful.
PS I know its not getting
There is a middle ground here.
I'm honestly leaning slighty towards say(). Sure it does nothing terribly
impressive, but it does make the code slightly closer to what the user wants
to do without an intermediate step and it is a very simple patch.
The backwards compatibility argument is bunk: we
Automated smoke report for 5.9.2 patch 24012
mccoy.peters.homeunix.org: Intel Pentium III ("GenuineIntel" 686-class, 512KB
L2 cache) (i386/1 cpu)
onopenbsd - 3.6
using cc version 2.95.3 20010125 (prerelease, propolice)
smoketime 7 hours 29 minutes (average 56 minutes 14 sec
On 2005-03-10, at 15:17:28 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:07:07PM -0500, Andrew Dougherty ([EMAIL
> PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The problem is the declaration of a new variable on line 1589:
> >
> > AV* av = newAV();
>
> Here we go. Third time should be the charm.
>
> W
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:08:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rafael
Garcia-Suarez) wrote:
> Nigel Sandever wrote:
> > This is patched against 5.8.6, but I thought if I sent it in, someone might
look
> > it over and tell me
> >
> > 1) Would the idea ever be likely to be accepted?
>
> No. Adding new
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:07:07PM -0500, Andrew Dougherty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> The problem is the declaration of a new variable on line 1589:
>
> AV* av = newAV();
Here we go. Third time should be the charm.
What do the rest of you do for cross-compilation issues? Surely not
ev
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Andy Lester wrote:
> The has_flags parm is removed from pad_push(), and I've refactored some
> of the internal code a bit to remove repeated code, minimize variable
> scope, and to add const qualifiers where possible.
> Let me know if this is more to y'all's liking.
On Solar
Automated smoke report for 5.9.2 patch 24012
sigcafe.xs4all.nl: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1800+ ("AuthenticAMD" 686-class) (i386/1
cpu)
onopenbsd - 3.7
using cc version 3.3.5 (propolice)
smoketime 2 hours 58 minutes (average 22 minutes 18 seconds)
Summary: FAIL(F)
O = OK F = Fai
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:35:38AM -0800, Gisle Aas wrote:
> Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:23:03PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> > I had exactly the same idea but then relaised that p4's annotate take a
> > filename and gives you 1 person per line of the file.
D> okay Dan, how does this grab you?
OK I guess. But perldoc -f oct gives an example and you don't.
Wait, perldoc -f sprintf doesn't mention how to "convert back"
from what it produces either...
Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:23:03PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:15:14 +, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Couldn't you also just leave out the ignore changes bit, then when you
> > look at an annotate when you see its cha
demerphq wrote:
Couldn't you also just leave out the ignore changes bit, then when you
look at an annotate when you see its changed by 'whitespace' you
pretty much know to ignore the change and it wouldnt matter if the
change was safe as you could always roll it back.
Not really, because what annot
Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> Attached are the patches to Debian's 5.8.4 package not currently covered
> by my latest rsync of perl-5.8.x. The patches have been re-worked to
> apply cleanly to that branch, but all should be applicable to
> perl-current as well.
00_fix_instmodsh_doc
Already done in b
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:23:03PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:15:14 +, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Couldn't you also just leave out the ignore changes bit, then when you
> look at an annotate when you see its changed by 'whitespace' you
> pretty much know to ig
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I'd much prefer the version control backend to hold a true and accurate
record of the actual historical changes that happened, and the whitespace
ignorance is done at repository read time.
That's fair and reasonable, I was just mentioning it as a possibility.
I'll bring up th
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:15:14 +, Fergal Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:03:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > I'd much prefer the version control backend to hold a true and accurate
> > record of the actual historical changes that happened, and the whitespace
> >
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:03:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I'd much prefer the version control backend to hold a true and accurate
> record of the actual historical changes that happened, and the whitespace
> ignorance is done at repository read time.
It may be easier to get your RCS to ign
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:20:37PM -0500, John Peacock wrote:
> If I could figure out where in the depths of VCP the P4 conversion was
> freaking out, I could easily strip trailing whitespace /en passant/
> during a conversion to Subversion.
I'd feel edgy about doing that for any permanent migr
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:46:43 +0100, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thing. Yves will be glad to know that I removed trailing whitespace
> > from three lines along the way. :-)
>
> :-)
>
> But i find it hard to beleive that im the first person to report this
> as an annoyance...
I find i
> thing. Yves will be glad to know that I removed trailing whitespace
> from three lines along the way. :-)
:-)
But i find it hard to beleive that im the first person to report this
as an annoyance...
Yves
--
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:29:25 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> >On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:24:10 +0100, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:18:25 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>demerphq wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:34:04 +
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:27:50PM +0100, Tels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would give the else branches curly brackets here. The missing {} just
> make it more confusing, IMHO.
I agree, but I intentionally left 'em out. I tried to change as little
as possible from the original.
--
Andy Lest
demerphq wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:24:10 +0100, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:18:25 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>demerphq wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:34:04 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello there. A few months ago I wrote:
> ... a regression with bytecoding: something that works in Perl 5.8.2
> but not 5.8.5. I know that B::Bytecode labels itself as highly
> experimental and risky, but I mentioned this to Nicholas Clark (in a
> bar) and he said it was worth reporting because
demerphq writes:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:20 +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > demerphq wrote:
> >
> > > Ive been having a lot of annoynances related to trailing
> > > whitespace in the .h and .c files in the perl distro.
> >
> > What kind of annoyances ?
>
> Ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
Any wrote:
>I'll limit the scope here of my patch and make sure I'm doing the right
>thing. Yves will be glad to know that I removed trailing whitespace
>from three lines along the way. :-)
>The has_flags parm is removed from pad_push(), and I've refacto
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:16:03PM +0100, demerphq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I guess Im confused by what this means. Why should removing whitespace
> be any different from any other patch that might be applied? I assume
> im missing something relevent that makes this all make total sense,
> what
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:20:37 -0500, John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > I guess Im confused by what this means. Why should removing whitespace
> > be any different from any other patch that might be applied? I assume
> > im missing something relevent that makes this all ma
demerphq wrote:
I guess Im confused by what this means. Why should removing whitespace
be any different from any other patch that might be applied? I assume
im missing something relevent that makes this all make total sense,
what is it?
'annotate' shows the last time a given source code line was ch
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:12:26 +, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:06:29PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
>
> > (Although i still think it would be nice if those trailing spaces
> > could be eliminated anyway.)
>
> I don't think that this will come in bulk until we
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:06:29PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> (Although i still think it would be nice if those trailing spaces
> could be eliminated anyway.)
I don't think that this will come in bulk until we are using a source
control system that can do a variant of an "annotate" command that
ign
I'll limit the scope here of my patch and make sure I'm doing the right
thing. Yves will be glad to know that I removed trailing whitespace
from three lines along the way. :-)
The has_flags parm is removed from pad_push(), and I've refactored some
of the internal code a bit to remove repeated cod
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:52:30 +, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq writes:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:20 +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > demerphq wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ive been having a lot of annoynances related to trailing
> > > > whitespac
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:24:10 +0100, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:18:25 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > demerphq wrote:
> > >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:34:04 +, Steve Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >>I hadn't realised that nmake also runs m
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:20 +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ive been having a lot of annoynances related to trailing whitespace in
> > the .h and .c files in the perl distro.
>
> What kind of annoyances ?
Having lines appear different to d
demerphq wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been having a lot of annoynances related to trailing whitespace in
> the .h and .c files in the perl distro.
What kind of annoyances ?
> Im wondering if this could be dealt with by those with commit rights
> ensuring that they dont check in code with trailing whites
Hi,
Ive been having a lot of annoynances related to trailing whitespace in
the .h and .c files in the perl distro.
Im wondering if this could be dealt with by those with commit rights
ensuring that they dont check in code with trailing whitespace.
Yitzchak did a check the other day and there are
On 2005-03-10, at 09:59:59 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:13:18AM +0100, Marcus Holland-Moritz ([EMAIL
> PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Removed has_flag parm from pad_push(), per XXX note
> >
> > Mmmh, did you test your patch?
> >
> > pp_hot.c:2706:35: error: macro "pad_pu
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:13:18AM +0100, Marcus Holland-Moritz ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Removed has_flag parm from pad_push(), per XXX note
>
> Mmmh, did you test your patch?
>
> pp_hot.c:2706:35: error: macro "pad_push" requires 3 arguments, but only 2
> given
Of course. What comp
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:02:26PM +0300, Alexey Tourbin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > This changes the ABI, so already compiled XS modules may no longer function.
>
> Really? const modifiers affect only compile-time checking.
> Do you you mean Perl_pad_push?
Perl_pad_push isn't in the ABI any
bat2pl.bat contains the following:
:WinNT
perl -x -S %0 %*
In an NT context, when I write a batch file that re-runs itself in perl, I
omit the -S and instead pass "%~dpnx0" as this provides the full path and
extension of the current batch, and avoids the possibility of finding the
same named scr
Mike Giroux wrote:
>(Both a minor patch, and my author-ship is minor, get it? :) )
>
>I haven't been @bear.com for 3 years now, sorry for not doing this sooner.
>
>
Thanks - applied to bleadperl as change 24015.
>$ diff -U 3 AUTHORS.was AUTHORS
>--- AUTHORS.was2005-03-10 08:35:06.00
Robert wrote:
> Andy Lester wrote:
> > Attached is a patch of my day of playing with adding const qualifiers to
> > many underlying C functions.
>
> This changes the ABI, so already compiled XS modules may no longer function.
We already broke binary compatibility.
However, already written XS modu
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:00:10AM +1000, Robert wrote:
> Andy Lester wrote:
> >Attached is a patch of my day of playing with adding const qualifiers to
> >many underlying C functions.
>
> This changes the ABI, so already compiled XS modules may no longer function.
Really? const modifiers affect
From: Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 March 2005 13:21
> Robin Barker wrote:
> > perl -MPerl6::Say -we 'say "Hello World"; say STDERR "Warning"'
>
> Clever, but :
> say { $fh } "willow"
> still doesn't work.
Yes. With the way I wrote it you have to do
% perl -mP
(Both a minor patch, and my author-ship is minor, get it? :) )
I haven't been @bear.com for 3 years now, sorry for not doing this sooner.
$ diff -U 3 AUTHORS.was AUTHORS
--- AUTHORS.was 2005-03-10 08:35:06.0 -0500
+++ AUTHORS 2005-03-10 08:35:24.0 -0500
@@ -555,7 +555,7 @@
Mik F
Andy Lester wrote:
Attached is a patch of my day of playing with adding const qualifiers to
many underlying C functions.
This changes the ABI, so already compiled XS modules may no longer function.
-R
Attached are the patches to Debian's 5.8.4 package not currently covered
by my latest rsync of perl-5.8.x. The patches have been re-worked to
apply cleanly to that branch, but all should be applicable to
perl-current as well.
10_fix_file_path
Rewrite of File::Path::rmtree. This is the most
Automated smoke report for 5.9.2 patch 24012 on bsd/os - 4.1 (i386/1 cpu)
(fixit.xs4all.nl) using version
Report by Test::Smoke v1.18.09 (perl 5.00503) [3 hours 6 minutes]
O = OK F = Failure(s), extended report at the bottom
X = test(s) failed under TEST but not under harness
? = still running
Robin Barker wrote:
> perl -MPerl6::Say -we 'say "Hello World"; say STDERR "Warning"'
Clever, but :
say { $fh } "willow"
still doesn't work.
Oops!
That's what Perl6::Say already does:
I misunderstood the comment from Nichols Clark.
Robin
-Original Message-
From: Robin Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 March 2005 13:06
To: 'perl5-porters@perl.org'
Cc: 'Rafael Garcia-Suarez'
Subject: RE: [PATCH] to provide a Perl6-sty
If you define two C functions, one in IO::Handle, perl just copes!
I've added C<"Using ", __PACKAGE__, ": ", > just to see what is happening.
Robin
% cat Perl6/Say.pm
package Perl6::Say;
require Exporter;
our @ISA = qw(Exporter);
our @EXPORT = qw(say);
sub say {
local $\ = defined $\ ? $\ :
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I wonder how hard it would be to fix the limitation in the perl core noted
> in Perl6::Say:
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Perl6-Say-0.02/Say.pm#BUGS_AND_IRRITATIONS
Quite hard, I expect. The indirect object notation is already the origin
of lots of special cases in t
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:08:04PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Nigel Sandever wrote:
> No. Adding new keywords breaks backwards compatibility. So you must have
> a very good reason to do so, and I don't think avoiding an "\n" is
> sufficient.
I wonder how hard it would be to fix the limi
Nigel Sandever wrote:
> This is patched against 5.8.6, but I thought if I sent it in, someone might
> look
> it over and tell me
>
> 1) Would the idea ever be likely to be accepted?
No. Adding new keywords breaks backwards compatibility. So you must have
a very good reason to do so, and I don'
This is patched against 5.8.6, but I thought if I sent it in, someone might
look
it over and tell me
1) Would the idea ever be likely to be accepted?
2) What else this would require to have if it were to be?
3) Does the code (9 lines) look correct?
Thanks,
njs
say.patch
Description: Binar
Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>Steve Hay wrote:
>
>
>>> op/pack.t...FAILED 14028-14604
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This is presumably caused by 24010.
>>
>>
>
>Please check whether 24011 fix it, or part of it.
>
Yes, as you've probably seen from the smoke reports, th
On 2005-03-10, at 00:14:04 -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
> Attached is a patch of my day of playing with adding const qualifiers to
> many underlying C functions.
Thanks!
But...
Could you patch embed.fnc instead of proto.h, as stated in proto.h's header?
* !!! DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE !!
64 matches
Mail list logo
