So, given the below, looks like we've got everything sewn up and the
long-awaited day of the STM merge is upon us.
Charles, care to do the honors?
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:31:38PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 8/15/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:
It seems to me that there is some confusion being given in this
thread and the most recent parts of its predecessor (which can lead
to FUD in the wrong hands), so I'll briefly try to clear it up, as I
would like to think I understand the issues.
At 2:51 PM -0600 8/15/06, David Green wrote:
On
Here's a proposed patch that seems to work okay for me on Linux. It's not
great or beautiful, mostly because of the Makefile hackery. It's a starting
point though. I suspect Windows might complain.
I don't have any particular attachment to any approach here, only that this
get in the reposit
On 8/15/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:14:52PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I wrote:
[snip]
> >It also does not allow .pmc files to overide the default idea of
> >whether a vtable method is read-only.
>
> This remains unresolved though I'm not certain
On 8/14/06, Smylers wrote:
David Green writes:
Thanks for that. In summary, if I've understood you correctly, it's that:
=:= two aliases to the same actual variable
=== one variable contains a copy of the other's actual contents
eqv both contain contents which represent the same thing
On 8/14/06, Smylers wrote:
David Green writes:
I guess my problem is that [1,2] *feels* like it should === [1,2].
You can explain that there's this mutable object stuff going on, and I
can follow that (sort of...), but it seems like an implementation
detail leaking out.
The currently defin
Hi,
I read the #parrotsketch log from today. I cannot join the IRC now. The
Graph based Register allocation is good for statically compiled languages
like C. The real value of Graph Based allocation comes when you have limited
number of registers and have to spill some of the variables to memory.
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:14:52PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I wrote:
> >The read-only variant generation currently does not handle NCI methods
> >at all. There are number of implementation options; the best I can
> >think of is to override findmethod (in the read-only type) to check
> >for a p
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 04:38:59PM -0400, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 8/10/06, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > /* XXX is it okay to combine flatten/slurpy into one flag? */
> >
> > The answer is "No": "flat" is an output flag, "slurpy_array" is an input
> > flag, and there's no
David Green schreef:
> ===
> ...is equality-of-contents, basically meaning that the things you're
> comparing contain the same [...] values.
How about strings; are normalized copies used with the === ?
http://www.unicode.org/faq/normalization.html
http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn5/
--
Affijn, R
Author: larry
Date: Tue Aug 15 08:52:46 2006
New Revision: 10971
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
Clarifications on C with bare expression.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/sy
Author: larry
Date: Tue Aug 15 08:41:37 2006
New Revision: 10970
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
typo
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(original)
+++ doc/t
Author: larry
Date: Tue Aug 15 08:40:59 2006
New Revision: 10969
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Explicitly outlawed \123 and the like.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S
David Green writes:
> On 8/13/06, Smylers wrote:
>
> > Please could the proponets of the various behaviours being discussed
> > here share a few more concrete examples ...
>
> OK,
Thanks for that. In summary, if I've understood you correctly, it's
that:
=:= two aliases to the same actual v
David Green writes:
> I guess my problem is that [1,2] *feels* like it should === [1,2].
> You can explain that there's this mutable object stuff going on, and I
> can follow that (sort of...), but it seems like an implementation
> detail leaking out.
The currently defined behaviour seems intuiti
Hello,
Yesterday i sent my first patch to parrotbug {at} parrotcode.org
according to the instructions in docs/submissions.pod .
I wanted to check if it actually arrived anywhere, so i tried to look
at rt.perl.org , created a bitcard account, and attempted to fetch
some tickets, but i can see non
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 07:12:06PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> PS - sbk30, please don't send me any more automated followup messages. Fix
> your mailing software.
I've found that our resident neighbourhood BOFHs have been very helpful at
forcibly un-subscribing anyone anti-social enough to be se
Hello~
Here is a snippet from the Pugs test suite:
{
my $ret = eval 'do 42';
ok(!$ret, 'do EXPR should not work', :todo);
# XXX or should it? Feels weird...
}
which motivated me to create the following patch for S04:
Index: D:/projects/Perl6-Syn/S04.pod
Hi, there~
Perl 5 uses the "\ddd" notation to index characters by octal numbers
(e.g. \187 and \13). Now that Perl 6 has the shiny new \o and \o[]
notations, we probably need to outlaw the legacy stuff explicitly in
S02 since we have the assumption that everything not mentioned in the
Synopses is
19 matches
Mail list logo
