I started to write an OpenGL library and was only a couple of dozen
lines into the pir when I remembered the documentation about callbacks
in docs/pdds/draft/pdd16_native_call.pod .
Currently there are only two signatures supported on callbacks: one
with user_data and extern_data and the other
On Friday 19 October 2007 09:30:31 Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
Why should it be a TODO test?
For one, there's no ticket for it.
For two, allowing known failing bugs is the Broken Windows anti-pattern. Not
only does it undermine confidence in the software (oh, still broken!) but it
adds
Author: kjs
Date: Fri Oct 19 12:40:49 2007
New Revision: 22276
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
Log:
and yet another line too long in pdd06_pasm.pod
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
==
---
i've added -R, --runcore options to parrot in r22284, with documentation
and tests. see Cparrot --help and Cperldoc docs/running.pod for details.
next we need to decide what to do about the old options. when do we
deprecate them? how do we migrate to the new syntax? etc. if you have
ideas, let
On 10/16/07, via RT chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #46481]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46481
Here's a nifty little patch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started to write an OpenGL library and was only a couple of dozen
lines into the pir when I remembered the documentation about callbacks
in docs/pdds/draft/pdd16_native_call.pod .
[...]
My questions are:
- Does anybody else want a generic callback function
Author: kjs
Date: Fri Oct 19 12:39:10 2007
New Revision: 22275
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
Log:
make line length test pass for pdd06_pasm.pod
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
==
---
Author: kjs
Date: Fri Oct 19 13:06:18 2007
New Revision: 22279
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
Log:
and yet another line too long in pdd06; fixing.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
==
---
chromatic wrote:
On Friday 19 October 2007 09:30:31 Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
Why should it be a TODO test?
For one, there's no ticket for it.
I saw the failing test, but didn't know where it came from or why it was
there. (And until I dug into it the commit logs, I didn't even know if
It seems as though the first line seems to have caught my eye.
In most languages, ~ is used for bitwise not, and not bitwise xor which
is given ^. Parrot seems to do things a tad differently. An analysis
of the generated pir shows how parrot treats it now.
.sub main
$I0 = 5
chromatic schrieb:
On Thursday 18 October 2007 18:04:15 James Keenan wrote:
Linux. r22261
[li11-226:parrot] 559 $ prove -v t/pmc/objects.t
t/pmc/objects1..74
ok 1 - find_type (base class)
[snip]
not ok 57 - equality of subclassed Integer
# Failed test (t/pmc/objects.t at line
I'm not sure about the current status of t/examples/shootout.t on Linux,
but it is still failing on Darwin. See attached.
It just passed on my Mandriva.
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com
On Friday 19 October 2007 11:37:08 Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
chromatic schrieb:
For two, allowing known failing bugs is the Broken Windows anti-pattern.
Not only does it undermine confidence in the software (oh, still broken!)
but it adds noise that makes it far more difficult to know
Author: ambs
Date: Fri Oct 19 06:21:28 2007
New Revision: 22268
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod
Log:
Added proposal for simple change on binary operators
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod
14 matches
Mail list logo
