On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Paul Cochrane (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #46223]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46223
Coverity Prevent
HaloO,
brian d foy wrote:
So, then, back to the question. People don't care how it's implemented
(and it would be great if we didn't have to explain it). What's the
idiom for the comparison going to be?
My understanding is that values like NaN or Inf are exceptional. That
means you can
On 08/10/2007, Joshua Juran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Paul Cochrane (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #46223]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Paul Cochrane wrote:
On 08/10/2007, Joshua Juran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Paul Cochrane (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #46223]
# in the subject line of all future
At 11:52 +0200 10/8/07, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
My understanding is that values like NaN or Inf are exceptional. That
means you can understand them as unthrown or in-band exceptions. Like
undef they might contain interesting information about their
origination. That being said I think these exceptional
Parrot Bug Summary
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/NoAuth/parrot/Overview.html
Generated at Mon Oct 8 13:00:02 2007 GMT
---
* Numbers
* New Issues
* Overview of Open Issues
* Ticket Status By Version
* Requestors with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], TSa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only operator that can be used to investigate these values should
be ~~ and the given/when statement that uses it.
Why should that be true? What's wrong with treating it as an object
like anything else?
The trick is limiting the
On 10/8/07, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
I think it should be something like this:
/* RT46099 Check we don't already have this parent. */
/* If we have already added a method with this name... */
if
On 10/8/07, Klaas-Jan Stol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/8/07, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
I think it should be something like this:
/* RT46099 Check we don't already have this parent. */
/* If we have already added a method
On 08/10/2007, Joshua Juran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Paul Cochrane wrote:
On 08/10/2007, Joshua Juran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Paul Cochrane (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string:
Markus Laker schreef:
If I've got this right:
mangle $foo :a;# mangle($foo, a = 1);
mangle $foo: a;# $foo.mangle(a());
So these --
mangle $foo:a;
mangle $foo : a;
are ambiguous and, as far as I can tell from the synopses, undefined.
So what's the rule: that indirect-object
Am Montag, 8. Oktober 2007 19:05 schrieb Paul Cochrane:
So, the patch is right (however, for my wrong reasoning)? Is everyone
happy if I apply it then?
$ svn ann src/pmc/pair.pmc
8374leo A Pair PMC represents one key = value mapping like a one
element hash.
I actually can't
Bob Rogers wrote:
I could only find a few find_type hits in t/**/*.t; these are now fixed.
(I assume this is because I'm late to the party.)
Great contributions all around. Thanks everybody!
All of the rest (besides the implementation of the op itself) seems
to be in documentation.
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #46249]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46249
Hi,
in the process of tracking down another issue I noticed (with the help
of
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #46253]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46253
Hi,
Coverity Prevent tells us in CID 130 that the 'next' variable is
checked for
No complaints; no smoke failures; resolving ticket.
16 matches
Mail list logo
