Re: [perl #32643] [TODO] Remove Perl* PMCs from opcodes

Will Coleda wrote: > The following opcodes return 'PerlUndef' on failure, instead of 'Undef' or > null. > > open, socket, fdopen, dlfunc, dlvar, find_global Patch attached that changes all these to Undef. -- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perl and Parrot hacker There is no cabal

Re: continuation enhanced arcs

Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Okay, I'm confused, I thought that the whole point of a caller saves, >> continuation passing regime was that the caller only saves what it's >> interested in using after the function returns. > > We don't hav

[perl #32645] [TODO] Generic PMC type info

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #32645] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32645 > Based on a conversation with Dan in IRC, it should be possible to interrogate PMCs ab

[perl #32643] [TODO] Remove Perl* PMCs from opcodes

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #32643] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32643 > The following opcodes return 'PerlUndef' on failure, instead of 'Undef' or null. open

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

James Mastros skribis 2004-11-26 14:36 (+0100): > And user-defined prototypes that change when the argument list of a > function ends, that is. If we forced the argument list for all > functions to have parens (including empty parens for argument less > functions), then we'd be OK, I'm fairly c

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.51_01 Alpha release

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:42:59AM -0800, David Wheeler wrote: > t/has_plan2...Argument "2.43_02" isn't numeric in numeric > lt (<) at t/has_plan2.t line 23. This is because you're running an alpha version of Test::Harness. The version number isn't numeric. There's a work around for

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.51_01 Alpha release

On Nov 26, 2004, at 12:13 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote: This means Test::More has no more critical or important bugs open. I figured it was a good place to pause and kick out an alpha. Works for me, although I did get some warnings: Running [/usr/bin/make UNINST=1 uninst=1 test]... PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1

Re: Angle quotes and pointy brackets

Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800): > but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation. > I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw, > so that you could write that: q:x/echo $VAR/ where ordinary qx/$cmd/ > is short for qq:x/$cmd/ Like

Re: Angle quotes and pointy brackets

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote: : ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like : qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ? Hmm, well, with the currently defined adverbs you'd have to say qx:s(0)'echo $VAR' but that doesn't give you protection from o

Re: $ @ and %

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:29:52AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote: : I'm talking about unifying namespaces of arrays, hashes and scalars. I : could swear i've seen some RFC about it.. Yes that's RFC 9, which was discussed and rejected long ago in A2. I just find that I prefer to think of the sig

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

> "Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matthew> Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any Matthew> mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how Matthew> they could possibly fit with formal parameters. Hopefully Larry or Mat

Re: deprecated transcendental ops with I arguments

Sam Ruby wrote: A simple CHANGES file in CVS, with a list of interfaces deprecated and removed since 0.1.1 would sufficient. Good idea. - pdd03 changes - opcodes - Sam Ruby leo

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

> "Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matthew> So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to Matthew> determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of Matthew> a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source code? Yes. M

Re: deprecated transcendental ops with I arguments

Leopold Toetsch wrote: These opcodes are currently still in the ops files, with a function body DEPRECATED and a name prefix 'deprecated_' but will be removed soon. I'm actively following this list, I am confident that this and other change will be in the Perl 6 summaries, and I agree with this

[ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.51_01 Alpha release

http://mungus.schwern.org/svn/CPAN/Test-Simple/tags/VERSION=0.51_01/ or http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.51_01.tar.gz or a CPAN near you. I've been killing bugs fast. With the exception of the circular dependency issue, all known is_deeply() and eq_* bugs have been fixed. diag with