On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Amos Robinson wrote:
I don't suppose we could really set up test cases for this sort of
thing, could we?
cross platform it would be tough b/c you need to know the full path
to something you can load. i've got a testcase that given a lib's
full path info it t
I don't suppose we could really set up test cases for this sort of thing,
could we?
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:10:32 +1000, Ross McFarland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:00 PM, Amos Robinson wrote:
Could we try loading it without any changes, and if that doesn't work,
str
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:00 PM, Amos Robinson wrote:
Could we try loading it without any changes, and if that doesn't work,
strip the last .?
my first thoughts were not to do that much tear up for fear of fixing
this bug, but introducing others. i'm in the processing of thinking
through how
Could we try loading it without any changes, and if that doesn't work,
strip the last .?
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:51:31 +1000, Ross McFarland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
i was playing around with NCI stuff tonight and ran across a problem in
loadlib. the following code does not work:
.lo
i was playing around with NCI stuff tonight and ran across a problem
in loadlib. the following code does not work:
.local pmc lib_gtk
lib_gtk = loadlib "libgtk-x11-2.0"
the problem is the '.' in the library name. code was added to src/
dynext.c in 8209 that gets the lib_name, the na
TSa skribis 2005-09-22 14:55 (+0200):
> Why not simply:
> loopbody:
Because I don't like non-block labels. It reminds me too much of
bad-goto.
This, and I fear this would have bad performance. That's based on
nothing, though.
> And I hope we all agree, that goto behind the scenes is
> not
> As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
> pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage >= 80%, and
> another for 100%, and how absolutely impossible it would be to set out
> to establish these points for all the modules on CPAN. But it would be Good.
This is a bug report for perl from [EMAIL PROTECTED],
generated with the help of perlbug 1.35 running under perl v5.8.6.
-
[Please enter your report here]
Attached is test case that when run under Test::Harness and
Devel::Cover will c
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
No, the role installs homogenious targets into the generic
binary-MMD comparator which I think is called eqv.
Err, why? We already have that with regular MMD semantics.
role Num {
multi &*infix: ($x:, Num $y) { $x == $y }
}
What you mean is double dispatc
Jonathan~
On 9/22/05, Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Roger Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you do tweak the signature for the packfile format, I suggest you
> > take a leaf out of the PNG specification and ensure that the signature
> > will robustly detect common erro
Yuval~
On 9/22/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:20:42 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
> >
> > >my $pair = (a => 42);
> > >say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
> >
> > Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i
"Roger Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you do tweak the signature for the packfile format, I suggest you
take a leaf out of the PNG specification and ensure that the signature
will robustly detect common errors such as byte order transpositions,
CRLF-to-newline mappings (e.g. when binary fi
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:20:42 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
>
> >my $pair = (a => 42);
> >say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
>
> Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i.e. stringifies to value).
>
> Note that S02 does specify that pairs *i
Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
a) live with it
b) change the magic number to be two identical bytes so the byte
ordering doesn't matter
c) shrink the magic number to be a single byte
d) use a magic number that can also be used as the byte order indicator.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:53:20 +0200, TSa wrote:
> HaloO Yuval,
>
> you wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
> >> role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
> >> role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
> >> role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
> >What is the implication of from the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:23:06 -0400, David Storrs wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> >>the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about
On 9/22/05, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:26:27PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
>
> > And, it doesnt help that something about DC breaks the defined
> > operator when dealing with overloaded objects. (yeah, he did say the
> > code was alpha quality :-)
>
> Bug report
As many TODOs, I'd say, one per bullet.
Thanks!
On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:31 AM, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
[leo - Mon Nov 01 06:28:21 2004]:
Will Coleda via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[coke - Sat Jan 24 19:32:16 2004]:
It would be helpful if IMCC complained about duplicate ".local"
l
On Sep 22, 2005, at 03:46, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
[ghenriksen - Thu Feb 05 20:15:50 2004]:
Leo,
The patch is at the URL below, and I've split it into 4 for you. The
classes-include-lib patch must be applied before any of the other 3.
I've resolved the 3-4 conflicts that occurred since th
HaloO,
Juerd wrote:
Both recently discussed situations with blocks can be solved by
introducing a way to leave the current block and resume it elsewhere.
With first class code types, &_ and &label beeing bound lexically
to the current instance of the sub class, the set of current control
flow
HaloO,
Carl Mäsak wrote:
But what if I don't care about the elements 1,4,7? Would the following
be a sane syntax?
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> undef, $x, $y { say $x }
I think that, if the concept of lazy list evaluation is running
deep in Perl 6 than the obvious solution to me is:
for @a -> $x
Damian Conway skribis 2005-09-22 8:20 (+1000):
> Note that S02 does specify that pairs *interpolate* to
> key-tab-val-newline, so you can still get "a\t42\n" by writing "$pair"
> instead.
I think separating stringification and interpolation leads to
unpredictability, and is a very bad thing.
Ju
Both recently discussed situations with blocks can be solved by
introducing a way to leave the current block and resume it elsewhere.
I'll demonstrate it assuming there is a pause/cont combination. For
these examples to work, pause needs to take effect after the entire
statement it's in is evaluat
On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pat
On 22/09/05, Shane Calimlim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about something like:
>
> if ($condition) {
> pre;
> always { # maybe "uncond" instead of always, or both -- "always" could
> # mean 'ignore all conditions' and "uncond" could mean
> # 'ignore the current block's condition
> mid_section;
Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
my $pair = (a => 42);
say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i.e. stringifies to value).
Note that S02 does specify that pairs *interpolate* to key-tab-val-newline,
so you can still get "a\t42\n" by writin
Excuse my noobness, I really have no idea about any of the inner workings,
but am just concerned with a more elegant syntax of doing it.
How about something like:
if ($condition) {
pre;
always { # maybe "uncond" instead of always, or both -- "always" could
# mean 'ignore all conditions' and "unco
No, please close it.
--Josh
I haven't touched parrot in ages at this point. Please go ahead and close
the bug.
--Josh
Eric wrote:
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify...
You wouldn't??! I certainly would.
Object references already stringify/numerify/boolify in Perl 5. Unfortunately,
they do so with problematic default behaviours, which is why C
allows you to overload q{""}, q{0+} and
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:44:17AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Joshua Hoblitt via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>[jhoblitt - Mon Sep 19 22:28:00 2005]:
> >>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Sep 22 07:13:56 2002]:
> >>>
> >>> If you're going to check the magic after the wordsize and bytec
# New Ticket Created by Simon Glover
# Please include the string: [perl #37227]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37227 >
If I run Configure using the --miniparrot option, and then run make,
then the buil
Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>> Cheers,
>> Joshua Gatcomb
>> a.k.a. Limbic~Region
>
>
> Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
>
In the tradition of i18n, etc., I had assumed that L~R was shorthand for
Luke Palmer. You may want to keep up the old tradi
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region
Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
Michele
--
Your ideas about Cantorian set theory being awful suffer from the
serious defect of having no mathematical content.
- Torkel Franzen in sci.math, "
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I have mocked up an example of how you could do this in p5 with some ugly
looking code:
You may be interested to know that this has had an echo at
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=493826
mostly misunderstood in the replies, IMHO. Basically
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 10:28:33PM -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
> David Landgren wrote:
> >demerphq wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >You miss my point. Whether the code be cross-platform or cross-version,
> >you need to aggregate the coverage results from all the environments
> >your code is designed to run
Stuart Cook skribis 2005-09-22 10:39 (+1000):
> If there's no (single) obvious interpretation of "turn a value into a
> number" for a particular type, then don't struggle to come up with a
> non-obvious one--I say just leave it undefined, or have it fail(), or
> whatever.
Leaving it undefined is w
Mark A. Biggar skribis 2005-09-21 17:44 (-0700):
> Now for a related question: is it intended that ~$x and +$n be the same
> as $x.as(Str) and $x.as(Num)? How locked in stone would this be, I.e.,
> ~ and + are macros that give the .as() form?
If I read everything correctly, this is the case.
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
> of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
I know of (that is,
39 matches
Mail list logo
