Hmmm... some discussion generated on this subject, but fairly light. I
take that as an indicator that an Celse on loops is a fairly popular
idea. The other possibilities are that b) people don't want any form of
else on loops and aren't saying so or c) people simply don't care,
but silence and
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 05:20:06AM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
Hmmm... some discussion generated on this subject, but fairly light. I
take that as an indicator that an Celse on loops is a fairly popular
idea. The other possibilities are that b) people don't want any form of
else on loops
Allison wrote:
As I was talking to Damian, he came up with a compelling semantic
argument why we would want Celse blocks to follow, which is a question
that needed to be faced since we rejected Ccontinue.
Specifically, the semantic argument with that idea is that CAPITAL blocks
attach
I'll paste a diff -ub below to show the changes without the
reindentation noise.
I am about to commit a patch that:
- Fixes a bit test bug, changing to
bits == (bitA | bitB)
from
bits == (bitA bitB))
- Count of elements in an array of PMCs was wrong. It was looping
over
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 12:30:56PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
For (1), maybe we should add an opcode: get_number_of_live_objects?
Then you could write a test case that records the number of live
objects, does stuff, forces a sweep and collect, and checks that the
saved number + #expected live
[modified repost due to warnock's dilemma]
Would something like these DWIM?
# match pat1 _ pat2 and capture pat2 match:
/ pat1 { ($foo) = / pat2 / } /
# match pat1 _ 'foo bar':
/ pat1 { 'foo bar' } /
# match pat2 if not pat1
/ { ! /pat1/ } pat2 } /
# match pat2 if
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 10:53:09PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
And the discussion of scope led to (what I think is) an interesting
tidbit on NAMED blocks...
Which I presume was that the proposed usage:
while $result.get_next() - $next {
# do something with
For (1), maybe we should add an opcode: get_number_of_live_objects?
Then you could write a test case that records the number of live
objects, does stuff, forces a sweep and collect, and checks that the
saved number + #expected live objects is equal to the currently live
number?
I agree this
Allison wrote:
This leads me to conclude that a normal (trailing, un-nested) Celse
is a much more reasonable construct for a Cwhile -- and at least
arguable for a Cfor.
And Cloop, I hope.
Sure. I always think of a Cloop as just a Cwhile with delusions of
grandeur. ;-)
Of course, one
Allison Randal wrote:
Hmmm... some discussion generated on this subject, but fairly light. I
take that as an indicator that an Celse on loops is a fairly popular
idea. The other possibilities are that b) people don't want any form of
else on loops and aren't saying so or c) people simply
Okay, the first draft of PDD3, calling conventions, is in. Sync up,
rip in, and let fly... :)
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 12:50:49PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
Here's another possibility. People trust Larry to get it right and
don't feel the need to weigh in with opinions.
I trust Larry. That's actually why I feel free to play the devil's
advocate. I trust him to toss the dross and
Hi,
While reading PDDs I have noticed minor bug in pdd06_pasm.pod: missing
new line char between two =item lines. Without it perldoc renders this
PDD as
clone Px, Py =item clone Sx, xy
Index: pdd06_pasm.pod
===
RCS file:
At 7:47 AM +0400 4/28/02, Ilya Martynov wrote:
Hi,
While reading PDDs I have noticed minor bug in pdd06_pasm.pod: missing
new line char between two =item lines. Without it perldoc renders this
PDD as
clone Px, Py =item clone Sx, xy
Applied, thanks.
--
14 matches
Mail list logo
