On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:51:34 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
>
> All the existing test suite passes. But there are couple of new tests
> failing probably due to multibyte representation \x{1000} which is
> represented in three byte sequence in EBCDIC . These two tests are
>
Hi Sadahiro
All the existing test suite passes. But there are couple of new tests
failing probably due to multibyte representation \x{1000} which is
represented in three byte sequence in EBCDIC . These two tests are
$c = ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x{1000}\x89-\x91/X/;
is($c,
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:31:43 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
>
> Having incorporated the changes in the doop.c and op.c
> I strangely get lots of failures and here are the test results. Seems
> like the first approach itself fails on tr// and there will cert
Hi Sadahiro
Having incorporated the changes in the doop.c and op.c
I strangely get lots of failures and here are the test results. Seems
like the first approach itself fails on tr// and there will certainly
more failures when we run the entire test suite which uses these
functions.
Hi Sadahiro
On 9/12/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:12:45 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Hi Sadahiro
> >
> >
> > On 9/11/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Do you think that perl-5.8.6 is not expanding the
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:50:26 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
>
> On 9/12/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I attribute the failure in tr/\x{12c}-\x{130}/\xc0-\xc4/; to
> > such an ambiguity of \xc0-\xc4. In this expression the left part
> > \x{12c}-\
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:12:45 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
>
>
> On 9/11/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Do you think that perl-5.8.6 is not expanding the character ranges with
> Unicode? If so how is this test case working?
> ($a = "\x{12d}\x
Hi Sadahiro
On 9/11/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:53:37 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Hi Sadahiro
> > The patch has resolved four tests that were failing previously but one
> > more test is stilling failing(which was failing even b
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:53:37 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi Sadahiro
> The patch has resolved four tests that were failing previously but one
> more test is stilling failing(which was failing even before applying the
> patch).
> Here is the test case
>
> ($a = v300.196.172.30
TECTED]>
> To: SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:27:45 +0530
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Transliteration operator(tr//)on EBCDIC platform
>
>
> Hi
> The patch works now as expected.
>
> Thanks
> -Sastry
>
>
> On 8/1
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki wrote:
> perl5 porters,
>
> There is a response in approval from Sastry to my proposed patch.
> I'll forward it and now submit the proposal (on my prev mail) to p5p.
Thanks, applied as change #25303 to bleadperl.
nal Message ---
From:Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:27:45 +0530
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Transliteration operator(tr//)on EBCDIC platform
Hi
The patch works now as expected.
Thanks
-Sastry
On 8/11/05, SA
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:56:31 -0700 (PDT), rajarshi das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi,
> This is Rajarshi expressing Sastry's viewpoints since he's on vacation.
>
> SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> According to the above statement in perlebcdic.pod,
>> s/[\x89-\x91]/X/g must s
Hi,
This is Rajarshi expressing Sastry's viewpoints since he's on vacation.
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:06:56 +0530, Sastry wrote
>
> > > As suggested by you, I ran the following script which resulted in
> > > substituting all the characters with X irr
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:06:56 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > > As suggested by you, I ran the following script which resulted in
> > > substituting all the characters with X irrespective of the "special
> > > case" [i-j].
> > >
> > > ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ s/[\
On 8/9/05, SADAHIRO Tomoyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:09:42 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Hi
> >
> > As suggested by you, I ran the following script which resulted in
> > substituting all the characters with X irrespective of the "special
> > case
Hello,
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:09:42 +0530, Sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Hi
>
> As suggested by you, I ran the following script which resulted in
> substituting all the characters with X irrespective of the "special
> case" [i-j].
>
> ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ s/[\x89-\x91
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:36:40 +0100, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:42:54AM +0530, Sastry wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am trying to run this script on an EBCDIC platform using perl-5.8.6
> >
> > ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x89-\x91/X/;
> > i
On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:42:54AM +0530, Sastry wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am trying to run this script on an EBCDIC platform using perl-5.8.6
>
> ($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x89-\x91/X/;
> is($a, "");
>
>
> The result I get is
>
> 'X«»ðý±°X'
>
> a) Is this happening
Hi
I am trying to run this script on an EBCDIC platform using perl-5.8.6
($a = "\x89\x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90\x91") =~ tr/\x89-\x91/X/;
is($a, "");
The result I get is
'X«»ðý±°X'
a) Is this happening since \x8a\x8b\x8c\x8d\x8f\x90 are the gapped
characters in EBCDIC ?
or
b) Should
20 matches
Mail list logo
