[perl #128875] [BUG] ignoremark + ignorecase ignores everything but first letter

2017-06-07 Thread Samantha McVey via RT
On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 17:34:57 -0700, timo wrote: > to be more precise, the way we code-gen "literal" qregex nodes with > subtype "ignoremark+ignorecase" will only ever check the ordbaseat of > the first character in the literal against the haystack. > This has been fixed as of

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
Quoting Joachim Durchholz : > Actually I'd like to *remove* a special case: That ² is to be interpreted as 2 But it's NOT a special case. You can use any character with No property as a numeric literal. That's. The. Entire. Rule that governs the behaviour under examination

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
Quoting Joachim Durchholz : > Actually I'd like to *remove* a special case: That ² is to be interpreted as 2 But it's NOT a special case. You can use any character with No property as a numeric literal. That's. The. Entire. Rule that governs the behaviour under examination

Re: [perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Joachim Durchholz
Am 07.06.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Zoffix Znet via RT: What baffles me is we have several people calling for the ban on The Superscripts yet, no one appears appear to have any issues with ⅟², ၓ², ౸², ㆒², ̣², and ၒ² which are also perfectly valid sequences. I would have issues with these if I had

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:09:25 -0700, j...@durchholz.org wrote: > There's also the issue that undefined behaviour tends to become exploitable > as part of a security hole. > So I'm seconding Alekx-Daniel on this. It's not undefined. My entire point is the reason these sequence parse is due to

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:09:25 -0700, j...@durchholz.org wrote: > There's also the issue that undefined behaviour tends to become exploitable > as part of a security hole. > So I'm seconding Alekx-Daniel on this. It's not undefined. My entire point is the reason these sequence parse is due to

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 08:48:20 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > We had a bunch of segfaults Segfaults are program memory access errors. Here, we're talking about well-defined behaviour that you wish to make more complex on entirely arbitrary whim by special-casing the compiler,

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 08:48:20 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > We had a bunch of segfaults Segfaults are program memory access errors. Here, we're talking about well-defined behaviour that you wish to make more complex on entirely arbitrary whim by special-casing the compiler,

Re: [perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Parrot Raiser
On 6/7/17, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > There's also the issue that undefined behaviour tends to become > exploitable as part of a security hole. > Or, even worse, depended on for some perverse result.

Re: [perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Joachim Durchholz
There's also the issue that undefined behaviour tends to become exploitable as part of a security hole. So I'm seconding Alekx-Daniel on this. Am 07.06.2017 um 17:48 schrieb Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT: (for example, because this kind of stuff makes the language look fragile).

Re: [perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Parrot Raiser
When I first started programming, any program that took physical input (which had usually been keyed very accurately by reliable young women) had to pass a test. It was fed its own machine code, backwards. It was expected to reach a normal EOJ, (albeit with a significant output of error

Re: [perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Parrot Raiser
When I first started programming, any program that took physical input (which had usually been keyed very accurately by reliable young women) had to pass a test. It was fed its own machine code, backwards. It was expected to reach a normal EOJ, (albeit with a significant output of error

[perl6/specs] 9c2105: Remove as an alias for \s

2017-06-07 Thread GitHub
Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs Commit: 9c2105171ef8b9a5b0a1970ad3ebd21490d5aefb https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/9c2105171ef8b9a5b0a1970ad3ebd21490d5aefb Author: Moritz Lenz Date: 2017-06-06 (Tue, 06 Jun 2017)

[perl #131530] [BUG] Perl6 REPL forgets the definition of infix sub

2017-06-07 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by # Please include the string: [perl #131530] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131530 > This is Rakudo version 2017.04.3-292-ga61746fed built on MoarVM version 2017.04-68-g5f233249

Re: [perl #131492] Camelia produces different error message from commandline

2017-06-07 Thread Benjamin Goldberg via RT
On Monday, June 05, 2017 5:05 PM, Will Coleda via RT wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:29:40 -0700, ben-goldb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On #perl6 IRC, I typed this: > > > > m: my \foo = Callable but role :: { }; > > <+camelia> rakudo-moar ef9872: OUTPUT: «X::Method::NotFound exception > > produced

Re: [perl #131492] Camelia produces different error message from commandline

2017-06-07 Thread Benjamin Goldberg
On Monday, June 05, 2017 5:05 PM, Will Coleda via RT wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:29:40 -0700, ben-goldb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On #perl6 IRC, I typed this: > > > > m: my \foo = Callable but role :: { }; > > <+camelia> rakudo-moar ef9872: OUTPUT: «X::Method::NotFound exception > > produced

How to install from a specific Git branch?

2017-06-07 Thread Gabor Szabo
Hi There! In the Bailador project we use a branch called 'dev' for development and one called 'main' for releases. Or at least we try to. In the META.list of the ecosystem https://github.com/perl6/ecosystem/blob/master/META.list we have listed the 'main' branch:

Re: [perl #131529] byte.Range should be 0..255 and not -∞^..^∞ (say byte.Range)

2017-06-07 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen
Fixed with https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/af85d5380b > On 7 Jun 2017, at 18:35, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) > wrote: > > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev > # Please include the string: [perl #131529] > # in the

[perl #131529] byte.Range should be 0..255 and not -∞^..^∞ (say byte.Range)

2017-06-07 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT
See also this discussion: https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-06-07#i_14699799 In other words, if you fix this, please also fix the dead code issue in “default {}”. On 2017-06-07 09:35:49, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > Code: > say byte.Range > > Result: > -Inf^..^Inf >

[perl #131529] byte.Range should be 0..255 and not -∞^..^∞ (say byte.Range)

2017-06-07 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev # Please include the string: [perl #131529] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131529 > Code: say byte.Range Result: -Inf^..^Inf

[perl #131528] [PRECOMP] Issues when sub itself instead of its "dispatcher" used in sub EXPORT

2017-06-07 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Zoffix Znet # Please include the string: [perl #131528] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131528 > >From what I understand subs—even `only` subs—have another Sub playing the role >of a

[perl #126732] [RFC] Problem with superscripts when there is no number in front of it (³² == 9)

2017-06-07 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT
“The only people I see complaining about it are those who just type it up randomly to see what it'd do” We had a bunch of segfaults and overflows that could only be caused by people throwing random stuff into the compiler. And yes, very often we had to go through this “wait, but normal people

[perl #131527] Cannot invoke this object (REPR: Null; VMNull)

2017-06-07 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Juerd Waalboer # Please include the string: [perl #131527] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131527 > $ perl6 -I. -MFoo -e'my @foo is Foo where Str' ===SORRY!=== Cannot invoke this object

[perl #131481] [BUG] No perl6-debug

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 19:50:32 -0700, rnhainswo...@gmail.com wrote: > I would like to work on perl6-debug. But where to start? > > I am daunted by the prospect. > > Some questions - hopefully easy to answer. > > 1) In earlier updates there was a perl6-debug executable. Was this > just > a link to

[perl #131481] [BUG] No perl6-debug

2017-06-07 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 19:50:32 -0700, rnhainswo...@gmail.com wrote: > I would like to work on perl6-debug. But where to start? > > I am daunted by the prospect. > > Some questions - hopefully easy to answer. > > 1) In earlier updates there was a perl6-debug executable. Was this > just > a link to