Re: To :D or not to :D

On 10/12/2015 09:51 PM, Mark Overmeer wrote: * Moritz Lenz (mor...@faui2k3.org) [151012 15:32]: . are they using :D correctly? Yes, though not everybody uses :D as much as they do. Do you check that all the parameters that your Perl 5 methods/subs receive are defined? If not, you

Re: To :D or not to :D

* Moritz Lenz (mor...@faui2k3.org) [151013 07:18]: > >In Perl5, you get slower code when you test for definedness... in Perl6 > >you get faster (better optimized) code. That's a big difference. > > Do you? Did you actually measure that? For Perl6? Well, Liz tells us that it can be optimized

[perl #126347] Please add FROGGS as a perl 6 meta-admin

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #126347] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=126347 > Please add FROGGS (Tobias Leich < em...@froggs.de >) as an admin of the perl6 bugadmin

Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out. On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote: But hopefully none of them breaking backwards compatibility on such a large scale. The last few backwards incompatible changes still cause pain in the ecosystem. We have 390+ modules, and

questions about qw<>

hello, playing with <>, two questions came to my mind: a) why isn't it "regular" ? use Test; ok < foo bar bang > ~~ List, "a list"; ok < foo bar > ~~ List, "a list"; ok < foo > ~~ List, "a list"; diag "actually a Str"; ok < > ~~ List, "a list"; not only it

[perl #126350] [BUG] segmentation fault with precompile + add_method

It seems to segfault in the op getlex when trying to locate Moving sub foo to within the BEGIN block helps and moving it outside of A gives: Cannot invoke this object in method at lib/A.pm6:5 Neither the rakudo optimizer nor spesh seem to be to blame.

Re: questions about qw<>

> On 13 Oct 2015, at 20:21, Marc Chantreux wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:59:04PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: > an unnamed hash ? does it make sense? sub h() { my % = a => 42, b => 666 }; dd h Just another way to create an anonymous hash. Liz

Re: questions about qw<>

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:59:04PM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: > > designers for having a very good reason and i'm curious: what is actually > > this good reason for such a weird behave. > > Well, for one, it is according to spec. :-) :) > But the real reason, is that you can also use

Re: Backwards compatibility and release 1.0

I had a related thought. We want Perl 6 to be the best it can be out of the gate when it is declared production ready at Christmas or whatever. If it is better for the default to be that parameters must be defined where not explicitly declared otherwise, then that is what Perl 6 should