I may have missed an obvious answer to this question, but has any thought
been given to allowing for variables which behave as though ever operation
on them is the hyper version of that operation? Sort of an automagical way
of redefining a LOT of operators.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Hello,
I just started hacking on Parrot Yesterday, so if some of these
questions have easy answers, please point me in the right direction.(I
have read most of the PDDS / fair ammount of the other PODs).
I have started work on building a new Apache 2.0 Module to run Parrot.
The
Hi Folks,
I stumbled across a Slashdot story this morning titled Super-Fast Python
Implementation for .NET and Mono. With the Pie-thon just a couple of months away, I
thought that this might be of interest (at least to Dan :).
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:54:23AM -0700, Chris wrote:
: I may have missed an obvious answer to this question, but has any thought
: been given to allowing for variables which behave as though ever operation
: on them is the hyper version of that operation? Sort of an automagical way
: of
On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 17:01, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
After reading the PyCON paper I'm not sure if this is a glowing
endorsement for .NET or if it simply shows that the C implementation
of the Python interpreter needs some optimization work. I was hoping
that there might be some optimizations
Hi Folks,
Configure.pl is giving me warnings about undef values being passed to Csplit on my
platform.
--
$ perl Configure.pl
.
.
Generating build filesdone.
Moving platform files into place..Use of
On May-15, Jeff Clites wrote:
When linking against (using) a static library version of ICU, we need
a C++-aware linker (because ICU contains C++ code); with a
dynamic-library version of ICU presumably we wouldn't.
I don't know if this applies here, but there is a good reason to use a
Can someone close bug #29268 failures in t/pmc/float.t on amd64? It seems to have
resolved itself. :)
-J
--
Suppose I fix a bug with a unique bug ID in a bug tracking system.
I start by dutifully adding 15 new asserts, say, to an existing unit
test program, to duplicate the bug before I fix it. What if I later
want some way to map the bug ID back to the these 15 new asserts?
Should I somehow assign
