Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... committed the change to ponie to keep it in sync,
and then realised I'd not checked the entire parrot source tree for any
other instances of these functions.
extend.h isn't included inside Parrot. I don't know, if there are any
embedders/extenders
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:07:36PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
You are also circumventing the isolation part of the xUnit model,
because you don't get setup/teardown for each test data. Possibly you
don't care about that in this case, but if you did, you wouldn't be able
to do the above, so
Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
Although watching two people hit each other in the face with custard
pies three times in front of a roomful of people may be a lot more
What's the task list for being able to upgrade ICU to something current?
This is pissing me off sufficiently that I WILL DO IT once I know what it is.
The one we've got is an albatross. It can't build with g++ on AIX
(because it has IBM compiler specific **OPTIMISATION** flags in the
default AIX
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote:
[snip]
NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off
the mark
but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land.
Just so I'm clear - I'm
Ask Bjørn Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
Although watching two people hit each other in the face with custard
pies three times
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:18:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Fergal Daly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* I never have to type repetitive tests like
isa_ok Foo-new(), 'Foo'
again because it's handled by a base class that all my test classes
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Time for these as well. There's a partial implementation of them in
types/bignum.c. I think it's time to move that to src/ (and the header
file to .h) and get it integrated into parrot.
There is now a BigNum PMC in CVS. It uses libgmp if present currently.
Other
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:09:49AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
set up (Ask's working on it, so at some point we will have a
compilers, standard library, and real perl6-internals list) we'll
Called parrot-internals ?
Nicholas Clark
Paul Hodges wrote:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me.
If that seems odd
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nicholas Clark wrote:
What's the task list for being able to upgrade ICU to something current?
This is pissing me off sufficiently that I WILL DO IT once I know what it is.
The one we've got is an albatross. It can't build with g++ on AIX
(because it has IBM compiler
With my recent checkin WRT bigints, Sub PMCs is_equal suddenly MMD
dispatches to the fallback function, result in get_number not
implemented erros.
Fixes really welcome.
leo
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Spider Boardman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings, and
Perl does, this is just one of those differences between the
languages where (essentially, and
As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and
String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints, and
graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I would
like to suggest that, when called in list context, these methods return
an array of
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and
: String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints,
: and graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I
: would like to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:26PM -0400, Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:
Hi,
Hello,
I've run into Can't call method add_statement on an undefined value
running Devel::Cover. Apologies if this was reported before, but the
list archive is not searchable. I am using perl 5.8.4 and
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:07:06AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
hi paul :)
I recently discovered an issue with nested subroutines while using
Devel::Cover with Parse::Yapp. the basic issue is that some subroutines are
not discovered by Devel::Cover and thus no metrics are generated.
Absolutely correct. I was able to reduce the code to:
require B::Deparse;
B::Deparse-new-coderef2text(sub {})
The problem occurs because Devel::Cover overrides some of B::Deparse's
subs, but when you go calling them in a program it gets upset. The
solution is to only override the subs
I am currently completing work on an extensible regex-specific parsing
module, Regexp::Parser. It should appear on CPAN by early July (hopefully
under my *new* CPAN ID JAPHY).
Once it is completed, I will be starting work on writing a subclass that
matches Perl 6 regexes, Regexp::Perl6 (or
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
with
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges wrote:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
with the
--- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Spider Boardman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings,
and Perl does, this is just one of those
23 matches
Mail list logo
