There's a 'minmax' operator in S03. Is this coherent with that?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:51 PM, wrote:
> Author: colomon
> Date: 2010-04-27 01:51:12 +0200 (Tue, 27 Apr 2010)
> New Revision: 30480
>
> Modified:
> docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Containers.pod
> Log:
> [Spec] Add .minmax m
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Seems like both NaN <= $x and NaN >= $x should return false for any
> $x, which makes me think NaN <=> $x should maybe return something
> undefined?
That reminds me of a bug I wrote in C++ one time. I had overloaded
comparisons in a way that
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #69959]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=69959 >
The first test labeled "Unicode named params (1)"
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #69622]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=69622 >
I've fudged two tests in S06-signature/slurpy-params.t be
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Saravanan Thiyagarajan
wrote:
> Would like to be a volunteer in working for perl-6.
> Can some one help me to get into right direction ?
This is how I did it: http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=780001
Kyle.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Currently all the tests which are not fudged in trig.t pass here
Same here.
>> 3) In general, I'd love it if a few people could look over the new
>> tests for sine (cosine duplicates them). I'm not 100% comfortable with
>> how repetitive they
On behalf of the Rakudo development team, I'm pleased to announce
the August 2009 development release of Rakudo Perl #20 "PDX".
Rakudo is an implementation of Perl 6 on the Parrot Virtual Machine [1].
The tarball for the August 2009 release is available from
http://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/download
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> Moritz wrote:
>
>> However it seems we have to pay a price: each act of rendering a Pod
>> file actually means executing the program that's being documented (at
>> least the BEGIN blocks and other stuff that happens at compile time),
>> with
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> * The DOC statement prefix constrains any block to which it is applied
> (including BEGIN, CHECK, INIT and similar) to run only if -doc is
> specified on the commandline
>
> * You can tell if you're running under -doc by checking $
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #68554]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=68554 >
These segmentation fault:
perl6 -e 'try { 1/0 }; say $!.WHAT&
use v6;
my $s; # ! $x.defined
my @a; # @a.defined
That's the current Rakudo behavior. RT #64968 suggests that this is a
bug. In Perl 5, @a would not be defined until something was put into
it. Which should it be? I'd like to write a test for this.
Thanks.
Kyle.
Rakudo Light
Rakudo Star Light
Rakudo Rock Star
Rakudo Hard Rock
Rakudo Play Hard
Rakudo Play
Just musing...
It works for me.
If I use the command you pasted, it's very chatty, but it completes
successfully.
git clone git://github.com/rakudo/rakudo.git
Using that command, it's not so verbose, and it also completes successfully.
Kyle.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Offer Kaye wrote:
>> git clone http
In Rakudo right now, this lives: "{$foo;$^foo}(1)"
However, the spec test expects it to die during compilation (see the
end of S06-signature/positional-placeholders.t). It says, "A
non-twigil variable should not precede a corresponding twigil
variable."
In Rakudo right now, this says 3: sub fo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
> Are these automatic mails valuable? I suspect they're jamming up RT.
If they're causing a problem, I'll (1) be very surprised, and (2)
discontinue them.
I find them valuable so that I don't embark on the task of testing a
bug that's already t
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #67860]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=67860 >
For example:
not ok 115 - xx= operator parses as item assignment 1
fa2dc31d48f805a66b0cff38386a3d6273 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyle Hasselbacher
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:40:05 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] [Test.pm] dies_ok should not be ok when death is from "Null PMC access"
[Test.pm] eval_dies_ok should also not accept "Null PMC access"
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #67622]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=67622 >
Sometimes something dies, as it should, but with the wrong error.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> rakudo 70bfd5: OUTPUT«too many arguments passed (2) - 1
> params expected [...]
In this case, it might be easiest to leave the word out:
Too many arguments passed (2) - 1 expected.
Even this looks not too bad to me:
Too many arguments passed
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> (Note to the bored: feel free to beat me to adding something like these last
> two to the spectests...I'm away for the afternoon/evening.)
In r27483, I added these tests to S12-methods/multi.t:
http://dev.pugscode.org/changeset/27483
My patchwork readings lead me to believe I could test Perl 6's
tie-like feature with something like the below code, which I don't
expect to even compile, what with '???' in places. My question is:
am I on the right track? Obviously there are details I haven't nailed
down, and any guidance would b
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #67258]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=67258 >
This is my crack at implementing these two operators. I'm lo
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 06:28:27AM +0200, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
>> +# RT #57336
>> +{
>> + # XXX Right message?
>> + my $good_message = q{Lexical 'self' not found};
>> + my $bad_code;
>> +
>> + $bad_code = '$.a'
Fixed in r27349, thanks!
Kyle.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Kyle Hasselbacher wrote:
>>
>> I've written a test for this in S12-methods/what.t in r27345.
>>
>> # RT #66928
>> {
>> lives_ok { &infix:<+>.WHAT
I've written a test for this in S12-methods/what.t in r27345.
# RT #66928
{
lives_ok { &infix:<+>.WHAT }, 'Can .WHAT built-in infix op';
isa_ok &infix:<+>.WHAT, Multi, '.WHAT of built-in infix op is Multi';
}
Kyle
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Patrick R. Michaud via
RT wrote:
> Now fi
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #67058]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=67058 >
I discovered this while trying to write a test for another bug re
e in the spec, but it doesn't have anything to do with
comments, really. If anyone can suggest a better home for it, I'll
move it.
Kyle.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM, yary wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Kyle Hasselbacher wrote:
>> This seems to be covered by a test
This seems to be covered by a test in
t/spec/S02-whitespace_and_comments/comments.t:
# L
#?rakudo skip 'nested parens and braces'
{
is -1 #<<<
Even <<< also >>> works...
>>>, -1, 'nested brackets in embedded comment';
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> # New Ti
I've added a test for this in r27180 at the end of S12-subset/subtypes.t
It looks like this:
#?rakudo todo 'bug #66854'
eval_lives_ok 'subset A of Int;', 'subset declaration without where clause';
Kyle.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by "Carl Mäsak"
>
I've added a test for this in r27179 at the end of
S06-signature/arity.t It looks like this:
#?rakudo todo 'bug #66868: Zero-arg sub interpreted as parameterless'
dies_ok { a_zero( 'hello', 'world' ) }, 'no matching sub signature';
I wrote this assuming that the error that's supposed to occur is
By my reading, it really is an error, not valid code. The infix:<,> is
looser than the ternary, as you say, so without parens, it parses as:
(1 ?? 1),(2 !! 3),4
I agree, however, that this shouldn't die.
I've added a test for this in t/spec/S03-operators/ternary.t
Thanks.
Kyle.
On Mon, Jun 2
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #61930]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=61930 >
I don't know why '1 < 2' would work but '2
# New Ticket Created by "Kyle Hasselbacher"
# Please include the string: [perl #61920]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=61920 >
I didn't see division in with the other "basic
33 matches
Mail list logo
