On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:07AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > > > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl genera
On Fri 27 Sep 2002 08:23, Leopold Toetsch (via RT)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
> # Please include the string: [perl #17615]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17615 >
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #17615]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17615 >
Attached patch fixed the "make --test" problem, reported by Tanton et al.
Actually i
Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
> perl6 operator precedence
>
>leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
>left. and unary .
>nonassoc++ --
>leftis but
Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
'_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
anyone come up with a use for binary '?' yet?
Joe Gottman
> - Ori
I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
similar to the one in perlop.pod.
This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
for : (adverb) or 'is' and 'but' are quite right.
perl6 opera
> Hhm - could you track this further down?
>
> For failing e.g. 1_1.p6:
>
> $ ./perl6 -vwk t/compiler/1_1.p6
>
> $ ../imcc/imcc -d -d -d t/compiler/1_1.imc >1_1.debug 2>&1
> $ less 1_1.debug
Those both work fine.
However, if I do
perl prd-perl6.pl --batch
At 10:13 PM +0200 9/26/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>And I'm seeing it on OS X with 5.6.0. Okay, we're doing something
>>screwy somewhere.
>
>
>"it" - not so much details please ;-)
Sorry, the originally reported problem. Basically all the perl6 tests
fail with assembler e
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:40 PM +0100 9/26/02, Peter Sinnott wrote:
>> I'm running linux on intel with perl 5.6.1.
Please run:
$ perl6 --force-grammar --test
$ perl6 --test -r
both ought to succeed on your platform.
> And I'm seeing it on OS X with 5.6.0. Okay, we're doing something scre
Peter Sinnott wrote:
So we have ...
>>$ perl6 --test
> Looks bad as above
>>$ perl6 --test -r
> All tests successful, 2 subtests skipped.
imcc seems not to produce valid PASM files for your environment in
most of the cases. Running them directly is ok.
Hhm - could you track
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
> makes it hard to predict what will happen, because new operators will have
> to be able to control what they do with their operands, and because new
> types of "array-like" opera
On 26 Sep 2002, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> These may be nice but not needed for scheme
> * get keyed with INTVAL (getting direct to the Hashes)
> * set keyed with INTVAL;STRING
Both get(INTVAL;STRING) and set(INTVAL;STRING) are needed (or at least
useful) for accessing hidden lexicals in outer
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Is that sufficiently vague?
Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
broad side of that semantic barn...
Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
makes it hard to predict what will happen,
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Working on this. If everyone wants to hash out the sort of semantics
> they're thinking about, we can probably get to closure reasonably fast
> and get things designed and implemented quickly.
My scheme implementation is a working (a little bit hacky bu
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > >
> > >perl t/harness
> > >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
> > >../../assemble.pl line 163.
> >
> > Hrm. What version of perl are
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks!
> > >
> > > I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> > > the results. Perhaps this is jus
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> > the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
> > implementation at the momen
"Jonathan Sillito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be nice if parrot provided the lexical scope semantics scheme (and
> other languages) needs rather than have each language implement their own. I
> guess this would be Dan's call, but just as another suggestion, could the
> lexical ops be
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> >perl t/harness
> >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
> >../../assemble.pl line 163.
>
> Hrm. What version of perl are you running?
Doesn't matter (within reason). It's a 'mak
At 8:26 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>On Thu 26 Sep 2002 18:14, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> >
>> >perl t/harness
>> >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
>> >../../assemble.pl line 163.
>>
>> Hrm.
At 5:40 PM +0100 9/26/02, Peter Sinnott wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> >
>> >perl t/harness
>> >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
>> >../../assemble.pl line 163.
>>
>> Hrm.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it's not a reset thing. I should have documented it better, though i
> thought the wod "initial" would tell it ;-)
Well I was thinking of it as initial allocation versus reallocation.
> The intlist structur
On Thu 26 Sep 2002 18:14, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> >perl t/harness
> >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
> >../../assemble.pl line 163.
>
> Hrm. What version of perl are you running?
You should know that
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:25:09PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Do you have a working Perl6Grammar:
>
> $ perl6 -vwk -e'print qq(Hello parrot\n)'
> P6C '__eval__'
> .../imcc/imcc -verbose-o__eval__.pasm __eval__.imc
> Reading __eval__.imc
> using optimization '0'
> assembly module _
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 116 > cat .timestamp
> 1033023609
> Thu Sep 26 07:00:09 2002 UTC
>
> (time of this cvs update)
> a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 117 >
>
> parrot all OK
>
> perl t/harness
> t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at ../../assemble.pl line 1
Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>#17549, 17569 intlist bugfix, speedup, test
> Applied.
Thanks again for all the checkins.
> One slight query I had was the meaning of the extra parameter added
> to intlist_new() by
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >
> >perl t/harness
> >t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
> >../../assemble.pl line 163.
>
> Hrm. What version of perl are you running?
Hi,
I just
At 5:05 PM +0200 9/26/02, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
>perl t/harness
>t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at
>../../assemble.pl line 163.
Hrm. What version of perl are you running?
--
Dan
--"it's like th
a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 116 > cat .timestamp
1033023609
Thu Sep 26 07:00:09 2002 UTC
(time of this cvs update)
a5:/pro/3gl/CPAN/parrot 117 >
parrot all OK
perl t/harness
t/builtins/array.Can't bless non-reference value at ../../assemble.pl line 163.
# Failed test (t/builtins/array.t at
At 12:04 PM -0700 9/25/02, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
>It would be nice if parrot provided the lexical scope semantics scheme (and
>other languages) needs rather than have each language implement their own. I
>guess this would be Dan's call, but just as another suggestion, could the
>lexical ops be l
At 11:50 AM -0700 9/23/02, Jonathan Sillito wrote:
> > -Original Message-
>> From: Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> "Jonathan Sillito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > get_counter:
>> > new_pad 1
>>
>> Doesn't this violate the 'caller saves' principle, making it hard to
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> What is annoying is that on my cygwin system, everytime I type make it
> rebuilds everything starting from Configure. It doesn't matter if I have
> touched anything or not. In other words
> perl Configure.pl && make
>
> will run Configure.pl twice.
Y
What is annoying is that on my cygwin system, everytime I type make it
rebuilds everything starting from Configure. It doesn't matter if I have
touched anything or not. In other words
perl Configure.pl && make
will run Configure.pl twice.
Very annoying.
Tanton
- Original Message -
Fro
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
> implementation at the moment.
Yes. I personally think it makes more sense, in a language that allows
in
On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> > > of date clashes with the recently introduced edit to
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of the results.
Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the implementation at the moment.
When looping over two lists of different length, the shorter stream shall give undefs,
when it has come to the end of the list,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> > of date clashes with the rec
On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > #17517 build system, permanent Configure runs - annoying at least
> The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> of date clashes with the recently introduced e
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #17549, 17569 intlist bugfix, speedup, test
Applied.
One slight query I had was the meaning of the extra parameter added
to intlist_new() by this patch. I assume the idea is that you can call
it with a value of 0
Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>#17353/17323 test for Parrot_sprintf
> Applied.
Thank you.
> ... The outstanding question here is anyop.h
> and anyop.c in languages/imcc as they are not built, and seem to have
> b
Steve Fink wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:44:11PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>> or who applies what when and why or not? This questions arises
>>sometimes, so I'll ask.
>>If people don't have the time to look at it, it's ok. But then, it would
>>be fine, if I could checkin at le
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #17353/17323 test for Parrot_sprintf
Applied.
I've also updated MANIFEST and the .cvsignore files to try and match
something approaching reality. The outstanding question here is anyop.h
and anyop.c in languages/
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:44:11PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> or who applies what when and why or not? This questions arises
> sometimes, so I'll ask.
>
> ...
>
> If people don't have the time to look at it, it's ok. But then, it would
> be fine, if I could checkin at least the imcc
In message <20020925234547$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tanton Gibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #17517 build system, permanent Configure runs - annoying at least
>
> I wish someone would commit this one as this does fix a very annoying
> problem, especially on cygwin.
Applied.
The problem he
44 matches
Mail list logo
