On Tue Sep 13 06:16:21 2011, bbkr wrote:
> NOM: still broken
>
> bbkr:nom bbkr$ ./perl6 -e 'my %r = 4; say ::%%r'
> ===SORRY!===
> Cannot look up empty name
Changed again:
> my %r = 4; say ::%%r
CHECK FAILED:
Undefined routine '&r' called (line 1)
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
(ext/nqp-rx/src/stage0/HLL-s0.pir:328)»
> I don't know whether that's a rakudobug, stdbug, both, or
> neither.
> std: :: % %r
> std 29733: OUTPUT«Potential difficulties: Variable %r is
> not predeclared at /tmp/BecvEU8Bg6 line 1:--> [32m:: %
> %r[33m⏏[31m[0m
y %r = 4; say ::%%r
rakudo 70667a: OUTPUT«Confused at line 11, near "say
::%%r"current instr.: 'perl6;HLL;Grammar;panic' pc 500
(ext/nqp-rx/src/stage0/HLL-s0.pir:328)»
I don't know whether that's a rakudobug, stdbug, both, or neither.
std: :: % %r
std 29733: OUTP
Simon Cozens:
# Clinton A. Pierce:
# > No line number, no context, nearly impossible to find to debug. I
# > think you're right, and you were given a pig in a poke.
#
# Thanks, Clint and Jeff. I'll be sure not to contribute anything again.
God, Simon, get over it. You might very well say the s
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Jeff:
> > > >Well, it's unhappy when you do lots of things. The code I was given was
> > > >not as complete/functional as I had been led to believe, inasmuch as it
>
> Eh, I didn't lead you to believe anything, and in fact I think I said it had
> portability issues.
Many
At 10:29 AM 5/19/2002 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Unparsable argument, starting from '"', QUOTE
> > > No line number, no context, nearly impossible to find to debug.
>
>That's an internal error with the assembler, shouldn't happen. It
>suggests the string regexp is broken. I delibera
Jeff:
> > >Well, it's unhappy when you do lots of things. The code I was given was
> > >not as complete/functional as I had been led to believe, inasmuch as it
Eh, I didn't lead you to believe anything, and in fact I think I said it had
portability issues.
> > Unparsable argument, start
Clinton A. Pierce:
> No line number, no context, nearly impossible to find to debug.
> I think you're right, and you were given a pig in a poke.
Thanks, Clint and Jeff. I'll be sure not to contribute anything again.
--
Life's a switch() and then you die().
Clinton A Pierce wrote:
>
> At 09:27 PM 5/18/2002 -0400, Jeff wrote:
> > > So the new assembler's unhappy. Suggestions?
> >
> >Well, it's unhappy when you do lots of things. The code I was given was
> >not as complete/functional as I had been led to believe, inasmuch as it
> >doesn't live past t
At 09:27 PM 5/18/2002 -0400, Jeff wrote:
> > So the new assembler's unhappy. Suggestions?
>
>Well, it's unhappy when you do lots of things. The code I was given was
>not as complete/functional as I had been led to believe, inasmuch as it
>doesn't live past test series 2 without some major tweaks
Jeff wrote:
>
> Clinton A Pierce wrote:
> >
> > So here I am, hacking BASIC to use keyed PMC's for variables to make it
> > blazingly fast when I find out that to do this I need to use the new
> > assembler. So I pop into lib\parrot and proceed with the build and I get
> > this mess:
> >
> --sni
Clinton A Pierce wrote:
>
> So here I am, hacking BASIC to use keyed PMC's for variables to make it
> blazingly fast when I find out that to do this I need to use the new
> assembler. So I pop into lib\parrot and proceed with the build and I get
> this mess:
>
--snip--
>
> So the new assembler
So here I am, hacking BASIC to use keyed PMC's for variables to make it
blazingly fast when I find out that to do this I need to use the new
assembler. So I pop into lib\parrot and proceed with the build and I get
this mess:
C:\projects\parrot\parrot\lib\Parrot>perl makefile.pl
Writing Makefi
Oh yeah...good point...:)
This patch has been applied.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Will Coleda
To: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 9/15/2001 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Difficulties
Um... with the current setup, there IS no Makefile until you run
Configur
Um... with the current setup, there IS no Makefile until you run
Configure.pl, so I really don't see how that's possible. =-)
Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
>
> The README really doesn't have to mention Configure.pl because when you do
> make test_prog it will run Configure.pl for you (at least it
I haven't had any problem with my instead of use vars...can you send me the
test program that blows up?
-Original Message-
From: Uri Guttman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/15/2001 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Difficulties
>>>>> "
> "BD" == Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BD> use vars qw(%opcode $fingerprint);#or strict will throw a tantrum
so why didn't 'my' work. those are file globals from what i can tell. my
causes interpreter.c to blow up. use vars fixes it.
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMA
> "WC" == Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WC> The README doesn't mention Configure.pl (minor doc patch follows), and
WC> Parrot::Opcode is requiring perl5.6, which makes my 5.5.3 quite unhappy.
i noticed both of those problems.
i found Opcode.pm has a use 5.6.0 and it uses our.
Damien Neil:
# On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:52:26AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# > use vars qw(%opcode $fingerprint); #or strict will throw a tantrum
#
# Not necessary--the patch changes those variables to lexicals.
# There wasn't any strong reason for them to be package vars.
Oh, duh... *smacks his
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:52:26AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> use vars qw(%opcode $fingerprint);#or strict will throw a tantrum
Not necessary--the patch changes those variables to lexicals.
There wasn't any strong reason for them to be package vars.
- Damien
Damien Neil:
# On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:15:57AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# > As for the 5.6 thing...I think we're supposed to support 5.005 and
# > above. Can you tell what Parrot::Opcode needs it for?
# (And if it's for
# > 'our', I'm going to punch someone... :^) )
#
# Er...I think it IS fo
The README really doesn't have to mention Configure.pl because when you do
make test_prog it will run Configure.pl for you (at least it is supposed to
:)
-Original Message-
From: Will Coleda
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/15/2001 12:13 AM
Subject: Difficulties
The README do
Will Coleda wrote:
>
> The README doesn't mention Configure.pl (minor doc patch follows), and
> Parrot::Opcode is requiring perl5.6, which makes my 5.5.3 quite unhappy.
>
> Are folks intentially using 5.6 constructs? I'll consider generating a
> patch to make things work with 5.5.3 if this was
The README doesn't mention Configure.pl (minor doc patch follows), and
Parrot::Opcode is requiring perl5.6, which makes my 5.5.3 quite unhappy.
Are folks intentially using 5.6 constructs? I'll consider generating a
patch to make things work with 5.5.3 if this was an act of convenience
rather th
24 matches
Mail list logo
