Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 24 00:59:42 2006
New Revision: 8928
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Rules for parsing and compiling unrecognized identifiers.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
---
Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
Will Coleda schrieb:
There was an agreement on 5.6.1 a few weeks back on IRC, if I recall
correctly, I haven't heard anything about 5.8.
This change was made here:
r11744 | bernhard | 2006-02-26 05:55:39 -0500 (Sun, 26 Feb 2006) | 7
lines
Configuration:
-
chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:46, Michael Peters wrote:
How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
That's exactly what I want and precisely why I think a well-defined TAP is
more
Michael Peters wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
harness.
No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
I
Andy Lester wrote:
I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
this released.
I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
I'm not attached to percentages, which I wasn't looking
On 4/24/06, Abe Timmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will raise the question once again Why don't we use TEST on mswin32?.
Interesting question, especially in light of the fact that TEST doesnt
seem to have any obvious Win32 no-no's, and in fact has Win32 specific
support, so presumably somebody
On 23 Apr 2006, at 20:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
[snip]
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a
test harness.
If it has it, then one can write a plugin to control whether or not
percentages are displayed. So for example, you can install a plugin
that does
that, and put
In Synopsis 5 (version 22),
Under Variable (non-)interpolation it's said that
quote
An interpolated hash matches the longest possible key of the hash as a
literal, or fails if no key matches. (A key will match anywhere,
provided no longer key matches.)
/quote
And under Extensible metasyntax
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:50:43PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
In Synopsis 5 (version 22),
Under Variable (non-)interpolation it's said that
quote
An interpolated hash matches the longest possible key of the hash as a
literal, or fails if no key matches. (A key will match anywhere,
On Monday 24 April 2006 01:46, Michael Peters wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
harness.
No, it demonstrates why a
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:49:36AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: But what if your subrule needs to know exactly which key matched or
: needs to match the key again for some reason? The second passage says
: that you may access they actual text that matched with $KEY and you
: may again match
Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 24 08:18:48 2006
New Revision: 8931
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
A postdeclaration may not change the syntax away from listop parsing rules.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Monday 24 April 2006 01:46, Michael Peters wrote:
Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
harness.
No, it demonstrates
On Monday 24 April 2006 07:56, Michael Peters wrote:
Not only would this make it easier to have a harness look for something
other than TAP (maybe some other protocol from some other language) but
it also means I can parse test runs after they've been run on a
completely different machine
Thanks, Scott Larry.
IMHO, the explanation about KEY and $KEY could be moved to where
the bare hash behaviour is explained as hash-in-angles-section already
says A leading % matches like a bare hash except ...
On 4/24/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to reset to before the
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:00:55AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:49:36AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: But what if your subrule needs to know exactly which key matched or
: needs to match the key again for some reason? The second passage says
: that you may access
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #38968]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38968
Placeholder (milestone) for the Parrot 0.4.4 release.
Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 24 11:19:24 2006
New Revision: 8933
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Clarification requested by spinclad++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
---
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #38967]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38967
Placeholder (milestone) for the Parrot 0.5.0 release.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:22:25PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Why don't we just have KEY work as an assertation, instead of having this
: strange as if thing?
'Cause the point of most parsing is to rapidly move on, not to rehash the
ground you already covered. And if you really do need to
On 4/24/06, Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patch included below changes lib/Parrot/Revision.pm and
lib/Parrot/Distribution.pm back to 5.006, and appears to be
the minimal change needed to get back to building with perl-5.6.x.
i'm of the don't repeat yourself camp, so as of r12404,
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #38969]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38969
running `per tools/dev/check_source_standards.pl` is disheartening, as
there are
On 4/24/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to reset to before the key for some reason, you can always
set .pos to $KEY.beg, or whatever the name of the method is. Hmm,
that looks like it's unspecced.
BEGIN
.beg looks over-huffmanized to me. .begin is more natural to
On 4/22/06, Will Coleda via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This issue is long dead, isn't it?
this has been fixed some time ago, yes. however, tcl's not building
for me right now for a different reason...
link -nologo -nodefaultlib -debug -dll -out:tcl_group.dll
lib-tcl_group.obj tclobject.obj
Op een mooie winterdag (Sunday 23 April 2006 17:30),schreef Steve Peters:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Automated smoke report for 5.9.4 patch 27938
kirk: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.00GHz (GenuineIntel 1994MHz) (i686/1 cpu)
onlinux - 2.6.15-20-386 [debian]
using cc version
Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 24 17:55:46 2006
New Revision: 8934
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
Random cleanup.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
accessing them?
--
Jonathan Lang
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
: accessing them?
Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
the call syntax.
Larry
Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 24 19:38:40 2006
New Revision: 8935
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Clarifications on adverbs.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Larry Wall wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
: How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
: accessing them?
Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
the call syntax.
Ah. So every part of a Capture Object has an alternate call syntax:
act
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:30:04PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Jonathan Lang wrote:
: : How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
: : accessing them?
:
: Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
: the call syntax.
:
:
One other point:
act $foo, @list, bar = 'baz';
is actually the same as:
act($foo, @list, bar = 'baz');
which might or might not dispatch to a method on $foo,
depending on whether (and how) act is defined.
Jonathan probably meant:
act $foo: @list, bar = 'baz';
for the indirect
Larry Wall wrote:
You might have to write that
@list == $foo.act :bar('baz');
I think or the colon on the method would be taken as starting a list.
I dunno, depends on whether .act: is considered a longest token,
I guess. I could argue it the other way as well, and :bar is a longest
33 matches
Mail list logo
