On Friday 11 July 2008 20:59:05 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
You're _completely_ missing my point. If we follow my proposal
to modify Parrot or code generation such that a capture operation
is performed for closures at the beginning of every outer sub
invocation, then by the time we get to an
Hi,
the July 2008 release of Parrot will be most likely Parrot 0.6.4.
It will take place on tuesday, July 15th.
So, as usual, try to not break the build and the tests.
Updates to NEWS, CREDITS, PLATFORMS, RESPONSIBLE_PARTIES and
LANGUAGES_STATUS are appreciated very much.
Please add the open
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 01:07:20AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
And again, under my proposal I've been saying (apparently
ineffectively) that autoclose would be gone entirely, and
invoking a Closure that hasn't already had its context captured
(i.e, outer_ctx is NULL) will throw an exception.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Will Coleda via RT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems to have been warnocked. I have no problem with renaming this
executable. Anyone care to comment on the suggested name,
'pbc_disassemble' ?
I don't have any particular problem, although I think it might be a
fperraud fixed an issue in lib/Parrot/Docs/Section/C.pm in r29329
Closing ticket
Closing ticket
# New Ticket Created by NotFound
# Please include the string: [perl #56868]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=56868
This is another attempt to add a Parrot_string_empty function to
replace a lot of
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:30:02AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
... But, as I quoted you:
. . . if cloning works the same as newclosure than we don't need
an explicit newclosure . . .
Which seems to say something entirely different. So I thought I should
point out that cloning
On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
for 1..10 - $x {
sub foo() { say $x; }
push(@foos, foo);
}
Is that really valid Perl 6 code? I can see my sub foo working there, but
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
for 1..10 - $x {
sub foo() { say $x; }
push(@foos, foo);
}
Is that
On Saturday 12 July 2008 01:07:20 chromatic wrote:
Obviously all Closures need valid captured contexts, but we have a big
problem when attempting to invoke a named Closure before attaching its
captured context. In Perl 5 terms, this is the relevant code:
{
my $x;
On Tue Jul 08 22:59:40 2008, particle wrote:
the configure tests take too much time to run, and should be sped up
by whatever means necessary so as to take a much smaller percentage of
the overall time for the test suite.
Another solution here would be to not run them by default. The purpose
On Wed Jul 09 18:57:43 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I closed this ticket in January, more code has been added.
Tonight, while writing unit tests for internal subroutine
_handle_ncurses_need(), I noticed the following lines:
if ( $osname =~ /mswin32/i ) {
if ( $cc =~
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM, James Keenan via RT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed Jul 09 18:57:43 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I closed this ticket in January, more code has been added.
Tonight, while writing unit tests for internal subroutine
_handle_ncurses_need(), I noticed the
Author: larry
Date: Sat Jul 12 10:50:57 2008
New Revision: 14562
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
[S04] small clarification to whether named subs are really closures
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
On Sat Jul 12 09:33:35 2008, coke wrote:
Another solution here would be to not run them by default. The purpose
of 'make test'
should be to verify that the parrot functionality works on the target
system.
If speed is your concern, you can call 'make coretest'. We've had that
functionality
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:27:26PM +0200, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
S29 doesn't show a 'sort' method defined on block/closure
invocants... should there be?
I doubt that. And to my eyes it looks funny. Only real block
methods should be useful and since the class is
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 09:01:09AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I'm not entirely certain if any of the following
: examples with adverbial blocks would also work. I'm guessing
: they do, but could use confirmation.
:
: sort @a, :{ $^a = $^b };
: sort @a :{ $^a = $^b };
: sort
Applied in r29356 with modified and enhanced test.
--
Salu2
The const string bug has been solved, so this patch is less useful.
Also, some benchmarking shows no significant improvements.
So, ticket rejected.
imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
solve this problem?
From: Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:06:33 -0500
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:30:02AM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote:
(And I still don't understand the *point* of cloning a closure.)
. . .
Longer answer: Assume under my proposal that we don't have (or
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, NotFound via RT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
solve this problem?
I'd say we'd need a passing test to close this out. =-)
--
Will Coke Coleda
From: Bob Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:46:19 -0400
. . . I will add [recursive-lex.pir] as a todo case, so we can be
sure that *that* also continues to work.
As promised, with badlex.pir and Jonathan's PIR case.
-- Bob
9 days and no complaints; done.
-- Bob
2008-07-12 17:28:24:
revision: 29361; author: rgrjr
[CORE] Make Emacs coda read-only in generated files (part of #37664).
=
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Will Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, NotFound via RT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
imcc_init is now called during interpreter initialization. Does that
solve this problem?
I'd say we'd need a passing test to close this out. =-)
I
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:35AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Short answer: cloning is what will enable the following to work:
for 1..10 - $x {
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:47:32PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:05:35AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:44AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Saturday 12 July 2008 08:06:33 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Short answer: cloning is what
What would be the expected output from the following?
my $a = foo();
my $b;
{
my $x = 1;
sub get_x() { return $x; }
sub foo() { return get_x; }
$b = foo();
}
my $c = foo();
say a: , $a();
say b: , $b();
say c: , $c();
As a
29 matches
Mail list logo
