HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
(@a X @b X @c).elems == @a.elems * @b.elems * @c.elems
Sorry, I was aiming at defining a neutral element of the X
operator. In cartesian products of sets this is achieved
by having a set that contains as sole member the empty tuple.
So how would that be written?
On Sat Apr 05 21:33:49 2008, infinoid wrote:
On Fri Mar 21 09:03:08 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there is a definition on my system for PARROT_HAS_SNPRINTF, but not a
definition for PARROT_HAS_C99_SNPRINTF. I assume, on first glance that
these two macros are one in the same and should be
Parrot Bug Summary
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/NoAuth/parrot/Overview.html
Generated at Mon Apr 7 13:00:07 2008 GMT
---
* Numbers
* New Issues
* Overview of Open Issues
* Ticket Status By Version
* Requestors with
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, James Keenan wrote:
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #52504]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52504
In
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:50 AM, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
(@a X @b X @c).elems == @a.elems * @b.elems * @c.elems
Sorry, I was aiming at defining a neutral element of the X
operator.
A neutral element for the cross operator seems weird if that is to be
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination of t/op/*.t files with 1000 lines suggests that the files
are long because the tests are largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the
files appear to be conceptually whole. Hence, there is no compelling
case for subdividing this test file. I am closing the ticket.
Examination this file suggests that it is long because the tests are
largely data-driven. Nonetheless, the file appears to be conceptually
whole. Hence, there is no compelling case for subdividing this test
file. I am closing the ticket.
Adriano, I think perhaps what Tsa is trying to get at is the identity value
for the X operator, and I believe I know what it is.
In the relational model of data, both the version of the model where tuples
have unordered named attributes/elements (which I prefer), and the version
where tuples
Technically the Cartesian cross operator doesn't have an identity value. There
is no set X such that
A x X = A. Now any singleton set gives a result that is naturally isomorphic
to the original set, I.e, there is a obvious bijection between the two sets,
but they are not equal sets.
--
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Technically the Cartesian cross operator doesn't have an identity value. There is no set X such that
A x X = A. Now any singleton set gives a result that is naturally isomorphic to the original set, I.e, there is a obvious bijection between the two sets, but they are
Hi,
in r26841 I removed the directory 'compilers/past-pm', resolving the
deprecation item from RT#48030.
After updating to the new revision, a 'perl Configure.pl' is required,
as Makefile dependencies have changed.
Best regards,
Bernhard
On Sa. 05. Apr. 2008, 07:40:12, bernhard wrote:
On Di. 26. Feb. 2008, 13:37:20, bernhard wrote:
The compiler tools in compilers/PAST-pm/ and
runtime/parrot/library/Parrot/HLLCompiler.pir are deprecated
in favor of the new versions in the Parrot Compiler Toolkit
( compilers/pct/ ).
# New Ticket Created by Andreas Rottmann
# Please include the string: [perl #52556]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52556
Hi!
The attached patch simplifies the generation of PAST nodes somewhat.
Larry Wall wrote:
How private is private? I wonder if what you've called private
things are really more like protected in C++ (accessible by the
derived class) and that 'my' attributes are really private, as are
submethods. It's all confused. Who is allowed to access what?
No, private
I'm taking a stab at turning the S\d\d documents into a formal standard.
Going through S02, each factoid gets filed away in a developing
outline. I'm using a single ODT file to make it easy to manipulate the
outline (currently mostly stubs).
Here is an early effort to flesh out imprecise
Thom Boyer thom-at-boyers.org |Perl 6| wrote:
I believe Mr. Stroustrup's deprecation of 'protected' access applies
only to data data members, not function members:
Fortunately, you don't have to use protected data in C++; 'private'
is the default in classes and is usually the better
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #52570]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52570
The current op definitions have a majority of ops that end with goto
NEXT();,
On Wed Apr 02 19:14:57 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri Mar 28 07:07:37 2008, coke wrote:
perlcritic is passing all tests at the moment. Added back to the set
of
default tests run in r26591. Closing ticket.
I'm re-opening this ticket due to problems I have experienced since
On Tue Jul 10 05:40:52 2007, ptc wrote:
In the file lib/Parrot/OpsFile.pm there is the todo item:
# TODO: Complain about using, e.g. $3 in an op with only 2 args.
This needs to be implemented.
With the attached patch, the following op:
inline op if(invar INT, labelconst INT) {
On Tue Jan 23 14:20:21 2007, particle wrote:
when compiling src/pmc/pmethod.c, cl has a few warnings:
src\pmc\pmethod_test.c
D:/usr\local\parrot\bug\tools\build\../../lib\Parrot\Pmc2c\Utils.pm(1096)
: warn
ing C4102: 'test_method0_returns' : unreferenced label
On Tue Apr 24 03:05:33 2007, rblasch wrote:
This is a follow up for ticket #42587, using Parrot r18304.
SunOS nexenta 5.11 NexentaOS_20061012 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
gcc (GCC) 4.0.3 (GNU_Solaris 4.0.3-1nexenta6)
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
On Mon Dec 31 21:53:55 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 16:08:09 Joseph Sadusk wrote:
Actually, yeah, I was using -j4, and I just tried without and it
works
fine. Didn't even think of that. Strange how consistently it
repros
with it though. Sorry about that.
27 matches
Mail list logo
