On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:42:13PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Steve Fink committed his IntList patch, and Josef Höök queried the
creation of an intlist.c file in the parrot core, as his matrix patch
had been rejected for doing something similar. Nobody has responded to
this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean?
We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure
in the language.
If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much
doomed from the outset.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody
actually concerned about this can always use:
$num = @massive.length;
I'd be in favour of forcing people to say this if they want the length
of the array.
But then, it might be that what
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to David Whipp:
(7,8,9) == 3 # true
(7,8) == 2 # true
(7) == 1 # false
() == 0 # true?
Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same
problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax!
various 1-uple
# New Ticket Created by Simon Cozens
# Please include the string: [perl #17490]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17490
The point of having a validifiable magic number at the start
of a bytecode file is
# New Ticket Created by Simon Cozens
# Please include the string: [perl #17491]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17491
% ../../parrot queens.pbc
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | | * | |
# New Ticket Created by Simon Cozens
# Please include the string: [perl #17492]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17492
I am so not doing well today:
simon@deep-dark-truthful-mirror
In several forms of courier, and some other text fonts
I view code in, I find it hard to visually distinguish the
pattern element:
( ... )
from:
{ ... }
What about replacing the former syntax with:
? ...
?
--
ralph
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #17495]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17495
Appended patch is somewhat experimental and needs probably a configure
test
Leopold Toetsch:
# As PBC files might be built from different core.ops aka
# core_ops.c, it
# is necessary to add a fingerprint to PBC files, to validate, that the
# interpreter uses the very same ops, when running the PBC.
Would it be possible to fingerprint based on the CVS version numbers
Now, trace_system_stack walks a ~1300 entries deeper stack in CGoto
run mode, because of the jump table in cg_core. Don't ask me about this
difference to 900 ops, gdb says so.
Ahh, good observation. (I'm more of a non-cgoto person myself ;).
Attached patch now sets interpreter-lo_var_ptr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
newbies don't say to themselves, now just how wide a
scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?.
Why would newbies be writing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
newbies don't say to themselves, now just how wide a
scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?.
Why would newbies be writing
Backtracking syntax includes:
:, ::, :::, commit, cut
1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
newbies don't say to themselves, now just how wide a
scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?.
What
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
While commit and cut don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
any better solutions.
commit is sufficiently hard that it musn't be confused with the
colon series.
I wonder if might be usefull instead of commit with proper
On 22 Sep 2002 at 21:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
While commit and cut don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
any better solutions.
commit is sufficiently hard that it musn't be confused with the
colon series.
Yes, I didn't think that enough.
At 10:52 AM -0500 9/21/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this
isn't python after all).
Sure, why not? I mean, we already use methods on integers all the
time--what do you thin 12.5 is anyway, other than calling the 5
method on the
# New Ticket Created by Bruce Gray
# Please include the string: [perl #17502]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17502
To specify a rule to build object files from C files,
root.in correctly says:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
How do you do C ($a + $b) * $c if parentheses are forbidden for
mathematical expressions?
I thought that , was actually the list constructor, much as = is the
pair constructor. (And hence
a = 1, b = 2
would be a list of pairs.)
Of course,
And the one best reason I forgot to include:
How do you do C ($a + $b) * $c if parentheses are forbidden for
mathematical expressions?
--
Markus Laire 'malaire' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# New Ticket Created by Bruce Gray
# Please include the string: [perl #17506]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17506
lib/Parrot/Configure/Step.pm, in sub cc_clean, is trying to
clean up its test
# New Ticket Created by Bruce Gray
# Please include the string: [perl #17507]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17507
Problem: *.tmp files, especially Makefile.tmp files, not
being cleaned up.
Cause:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? Something
along these lines:
(7) # list context
(3+4) # numeric context (there's a numeric operator in there)
(3+4,5) # list context (comma trumps the numeric
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0500, Me wrote:
So, how about something like:
: # lock in current atom, ie as now
:] # lock in surrounding group, currently ::
: # lock in surrounding rule, currently :::
:/ # lock in top level rule,
According to John Williams:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
(7,) is an abomination. It's one of python's misfeatures that annoys
me the most.
Of course, _requiring_ the comma is bad [...]
Well, I don't know about Jonathan, but requiring the comma is exactly
what Python
25 matches
Mail list logo
