I've just checked in (r12442) a large set of updates to PGE; these
updates are in response to recent changes in S05, as well as to allow PGE
to take advantage of recently-added Parrot features (e.g. named
argument passing).
As part of the update I also patched any language and/or other
componen
Author: larry
Date: Wed Apr 26 14:41:21 2006
New Revision: 8967
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Typos, clarifications.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/tru
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 12:17, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Try a :multi first; if unsuccessful, compare type, and if match,
> serialize both sides using freeze_pmc (or some kind of Dumper), and
> compare the strings?
I do have multis for primitive types (I,N,S,P), but when I have an array of
arrays
chromatic wrote:
> With Parrot's type system, where the writer of the code (me) doesn't know at
> code writing time what the type of the incoming data structures or individual
> data members might be, what's a concise and maintainable way to port
> is_deeply() to PIR?
Try a :multi first; if uns
Hi all,
I'm working on is_deeply() for Test::More in PIR. Handling nested data
structures is painful in PIR. I'm not asking for better abstractions to
handle that, just ideas on how to handle the algorithm.
Multidispatch helps, but :multi( Array, Array ) or :multi( Hash, Hash ) don't
work ba
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 10:07:38 2006
New Revision: 8962
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: bump version from the unicode change; also merge in
azuroth++'s typo fix, as well as paragraph reflow.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 10:05:19 2006
New Revision: 8961
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* Further note that Ps/Pe dominates BidiMirroring, so U+298D
maps to U+298E, and U+298E itself does not open brackets.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 09:45:43 2006
New Revision: 8958
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* U+201A and U+201E also have to go.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S0
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 09:36:05 2006
New Revision: 8957
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: Explicitly define how Ps/Pe and BidiMirroring
characters match, and resolve the one-to-many
open/closing mapping by preferring the lower
codepoint.
Modifi
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:36:50AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Possibly we should make the syntax be a smart match, but only require that
: conformat implementations implement ranges and integers.
That is essentially the intent of the current spec, and why we defined
**{} to run a closure.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 17:34, Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
>
> > Previously, I expect the only reason it was passing for some folks is
> > that
> > unused I registers are somehow automatically set to 0 on Linux/x86.
> Unitialized I and N regs
Author: autrijus
Date: Wed Apr 26 07:12:51 2006
New Revision: 8953
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
* S03: particle++ noted the omission of prefix unary
= and -e -w -x etc from the operator table.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
===
On 12/22/05, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 8:09:32 PM, François PERRAD wrote:
> > At 11:53 16/12/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >>I can think of two ways to fix this:
> >>
> >>- Hide every env access behind the platform stuff. That is, add
> >>something like Par
# New Ticket Created by Ron Blaschke
# Please include the string: [perl #39009]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39009 >
It's gotta be C.
Index: parrot/src/pmc/bigint.pmc
=
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:57:58PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> According to Synopsis 5, the repetition qualifier is now **{.} where the .
> must correspond to either an Int or a Range. This seems rather restrictive.
> Why are we not allowed a junction of Ints, for instance
>
> m/^ a*
On 4/26/06, Joe Gottman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Synopsis 5, the repetition qualifier is now **{.} where the .
> must correspond to either an Int or a Range. This seems rather restrictive.
> Why are we not allowed a junction of Ints, for instance
S05 also says:
It is illegal to
languages/BASIC has been broken for almost two years, and after multiple
followups, nobody has claimed responsibility for the language
implementation or a fix.
this ticket has been marked 'stalled'.
17 matches
Mail list logo
