On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:25:23PM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
: Mark A. Biggar wrote:
: >Small issue, what comparison operator do you use to determine
: >duplicates? For example (possibly pathological case):
: >
: >(undef but true) (+) (undef but false)
:
: Actually, I'm going to make a stab a
On 8/11/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So either we have to bifurcate the concept into "temporarily constant"
> and "permanently constant", or we force people to distinguish with ::=
> (or "is constant('foo')"), or we make some representations about the
> requirement for the compiler t
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell
Ovid wrote:
X-Posted to Perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=483100)
I frequently write code that generates anonymous functions on the fly.
However, I often want to verify that these functions are correct
without executing them. To this end, I've started writing Test::Code.
Here'
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell them that lists (and pos
My notes to myself as I read the 2005-08-04 IRC discussion of
the MetaModel:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/perl6?date=2005-08-04,Thu&sel=356#l564
Clarification, corrections, and questions welcome.
Master document at
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel/docs/20_00
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may wish to look at Test::Inline and Test::Class which are different
approaches to putting your tests near your code.
Test::Inline looks like what I'm thinking - thanx
Also __TEST__ is not legal Perl which gets into source filters and then the
burning and itc
--- Ivan Tubert-Brohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't
>
>ok defined *::is_code{CODE};
>
> just a convoluted way of saying
>
>ok defined &is_code;
Er, yes. It is. That's just a really bad habit on my part. I do a
fair amount of typeglob diddling, so that tends to stick in my min
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:28:36AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm thinking that the code, tests, data and pod are all there in the pm
> file - that seems on the surface a good thing. Does this seem like a
> reasonable idea ?
>
> Against it is the significant inertia the current .t regime
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:49:57PM -0700, Ovid wrote:
BEGIN { use_ok 'Test::Code' or die }
ok defined *::is_code{CODE},
'&is_code should be exported to our namespace';
I usually do this with can_ok()
can_ok( __PACKAGE__, qw(is_code isnt_code) );
Isn'
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ok defined *::is_code{CODE},
> > '&is_code should be exported to our namespace';
>
> I usually do this with can_ok()
>
> can_ok( __PACKAGE__, qw(is_code isnt_code) );
I specifically avoid that with methods because &can_ok provides
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I usually do this with can_ok()
can_ok( __PACKAGE__, qw(is_code isnt_code) );
Initially i thought "Would that work ? Isnt __PACKAGE__ equal to main::
in a t file ?" then I realised we're testing that the use_ok is
exporting these to our namespace, which
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:49:57PM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> BEGIN { use_ok 'Test::Code' or die }
>
> ok defined *::is_code{CODE},
> '&is_code should be exported to our namespace';
I usually do this with can_ok()
can_ok( __PACKAGE__, qw(is_code isnt_code) );
> is_code sub { 1 }, s
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
> > We should also tell them that lists (and possibly any
On 8/10/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if infinite sets (recurrences) will be supported - then I'll
> move all(ext/Recurrence, ext/Span, ext/Set-Infinite) to
> Perl6::Container::Set::Ordered - cool.
Note "there is now a Set role". Emphasis on role. There will be a
fin
On 8/10/05, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 21:00 -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> >Will there be an operator for symmetric difference? I nominate (^).
>
> That makes sense, although bear in mind that the existing Set module for
> Perl 6, and the Set::Scalar and Set::
On 8/11/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
> >>my Foo ::x;
> >>a) ::x (<=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
> >>b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class
X-Posted to Perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=483100)
I frequently write code that generates anonymous functions on the fly.
However, I often want to verify that these functions are correct
without executing them. To this end, I've started writing Test::Code.
Here's the start of
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 01:43:43AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:41:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : If yes, what does it desugar to?
: > :
: > : my $pi is constant := 3;
: > : my $pi is constant ::= 3;
: >
: > In this case it desugars to
: >
: > my $pi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:41:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : If yes, what does it desugar to?
> :
> : my $pi is constant := 3;
> : my $pi is constant ::= 3;
>
> In this case it desugars to
>
> my $pi is constant = 3;
>
> :-)
However, I wonder if the intention was to replace the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do 11. Aug 2005, 05:28:37]:
>
>
> *nix utilities are not available on Win32.
> But Perl allows to write portable test.
>
Merci,
applied. I'm wondering why we don't use ExtUtils::Commands by default for
all of the Parrot Makefiles and config tests.
--
/* [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:22:27AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:47:35AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : Adding inference ("is typed") to the mix massively sweetens the first
> : option, which would be a good thing.
>
> Only if the programmer can be taught to understand the
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: >defined($spot); # false!?
:
: true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because when my is evaluated the
: name ::Dog has be be bound, AUTOLOADED or by whatever means become
: available.
What does binding have to do with definedness? In Perl 6 t
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 10:47:35AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Really this is about path of least resistance. Without inference,
: we are asking the user to choose between:
:
: 1) Verbose annotation and type safety
: 2) Convenience (no annotation) and unsafe behaviour
:
: Adding infere
HaloO,
Stuart Cook wrote:
On the other hand, there are other things that don't work quite so well:
my Dog $spot;
$spot.can('bark');# Not until he's instantiated...
Are you objecting to the fact that it can't possibly return a valid
method, or that it will inappropriately true/false (
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:47:49PM +0200, TSa wrote:
> OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
Note that $spot here is intended to be dynamic typed, i.e. not subject
to inference. :-)
> >my $spot = Dog;
>
> $spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
> was s
> On 5/28/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 09:24:13PM +0200, Gregoire Pean wrote:
> > > "make install" with Pugs creates a pugs.exe.bat file in Perl bin
> > > directrory, which is useless and don't work since
> pugs.exe is not a
> > > Perl script. It should
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What about this?
OK, let's play some manual type inferencing ;)
my $spot = Dog;
$spot.does(Item of Dog), that means what ever the name Dog represents
was stored or bound to $spot.
defined($spot); # false!?
true! Even for my $spot = ::Dog because
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:53:47PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
> On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One that you missed was that this syntax:
> >
> >my Dog $spot .=new();
> >
> > Falls out of it quite naturally.
>
> Actually I tried to mention that indirectly,
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #36862]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=36862 >
*nix utilities are not available on Win32.
But Perl allows to write portable test.
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
my Foo ::x;
a) ::x (<=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something else?
My current reading is a) -- but only if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (via RT) wrote:
Objective:
Parrot stops for segmentation fault when "-E (--pre-process-only)"
option is specified.
This patch fixes this bug.
Thanks, applied -r8914
(Please not that the preprocessor is currently not uptodate and doesn't
process all tokens correctly)
Amir Karger wrote:
If I say "perl Zcode/t/harness" I want it to run "parrot Zcode/z3.imc
testfile.z3". My current problem is that z3.imc includes a file
z3main.imc. So the above command breaks because z3.imc can't find the
include file. If this were Perl, I would just say "Perl-IZcode
Zcode/z3.im
Curtis Rawls wrote:
This patch adds a bb_remove_edge() function, and decouples unreachable blocks
from the CFG by removing their successor edges.
Thanks, applied - r8913
leo
On 11/08/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One that you missed was that this syntax:
>
>my Dog $spot .=new();
>
> Falls out of it quite naturally.
Actually I tried to mention that indirectly, but I'm glad you
explicitly mentioned it.
> On the other hand, there are ot
Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/08/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
> > struck with the thought that our "platonic" Class objects are really
> > forms of undef:
> >
> > say defined IO; # prints 0
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
> What's the current meaning of type annotations on type-variables?
>
> For example, if I say...
>
> my Foo ::x;
>
> ...which of these does it mean?
>
> a) ::x (<=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
>
On 11/08/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll have to think about the rest of your proposal, but I was suddenly
> struck with the thought that our "platonic" Class objects are really
> forms of undef:
>
> say defined IO; # prints 0
>
> That is, we already have an object of type IO
Hi,
What's the current meaning of type annotations on type-variables?
For example, if I say...
my Foo ::x;
...which of these does it mean?
a) ::x (<=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something else?
I
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-08-02 through 2005-08-10
All~
Welcome to another summary, brought to you by chinese food. The
attentive among you will notice that this summary is a day late, because
I did not feel like doing it yesterday. If only I could do that at
work...
Perl 6 Co
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:25:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Anyone done any work on parsing Java interface definitions?
>
> And, ideally, translating them into roughly equivalent Perl 6?
I wrote something that did this with Parse::RecDescent. Unfortunately,
I don't own the code.
For my purposes
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
The purpose is that we don't have to be strong typists to enjoy Strong
Typing. To make Perl6 easier to type, and easier to Type.
Great! You, if not solve, but at least aim at relieving the pain caused
by the 'proliferation of type parameters' problem. Consider me a
42 matches
Mail list logo
