Am Sonntag, 20. August 2006 02:43 schrieb Will Coleda:
[1] http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38594
and WTF - who dared to close that (coke--)
This isn't the same error, it's a different one.
Do you intend to have a new ticket for each PIR snippet with wrong line
Perl 6 mailing list summary for the weeks of August 1-19, 2006
Summary updates
This is the final installment of the older summaries. After this week, I
plan to post weekly summaries on Sundays.
Parrot Porters
[perl #39750] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tru64 core dump:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:12:12AM -0700, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. August 2006 02:43 schrieb Will Coleda:
[1] http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38594
and WTF - who dared to close that (coke--)
This isn't the same error, it's a different one.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q
...
}
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where you just
On 8/20/06, Joshua Hoblitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
questions. Is code inside of a #{}:
- parsed and required to be syntacticly correct?
No. It's a comment. # followed by one or more open bracket characters
creates a
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
#{
if $baz {
$foo.bar
}
}
To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
questions. Is code inside of a #{}:
- parsed and required
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You don't actually need a macro in that case:
:
: if 0 { q
: ...
: }
:
: Which, of course,
On 8/20/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
#{
if $baz {
$foo.bar
}
}
To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
questions.
On 8/20/06, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I think you are being too picky.
[snip snarky sarcastic rant]
Hmm, perhaps I'm feeling edgy. Or maybe some of the comments reminded
me of those rediculously long, whiny threads. Anyway, that was
un-called-for.
Luke
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
The important question here is this one:
- when 'uncommented', is it a no-op?
Which isn't true for #{}/{}, because {} introduces new lexical
scope.
Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You would
care
10 matches
Mail list logo
