com wrote:
> > Code:
> > BEGIN (1, 2)[*-1]
> >
> > Result:
> > ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling
> > An exception occurred while evaluating a BEGIN
> > at :1
> > Exception details:
> > ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling
> > Cannot invok
On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:02:45 -0800, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Code:
> BEGIN (1, 2)[*-1]
>
> Result:
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling
> An exception occurred while evaluating a BEGIN
> at :1
> Exception details:
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling
&g
SORRY disappeared after
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/25e9fd76e85fabda20e263b6f87e27b0673f26e2
On 2017-10-08 01:21:27, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Code:
> say ‘Hello’; say *...‘WAT’
>
> Result:
> Hello
> No such method 'succ' for invocant of type &
Did you mean any of
these?
grep
tree
in block at -e line 1
I guess these errors make sense? Not quite sure why it calls .pred though.
On 2016-07-16 20:26:01, c...@zoffix.com wrote:
> Another similar case:
>
> zoffix@VirtualBox:~/CPANPRC/rakudo$ ./perl6 -e 'say 0, * ... "what"'
> ===SORRY!===
> Method 'pred' not found for invocant of class 'Whatever'
ure, put "[NYI]" in the subject line,
>> for "not yet implemented".
>>
>> You can of course track Perl 6 bugs at in RT, perl6 queue:
>> https://rt.perl.org/
>>
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
>> I just tried:
&
l 6 bugs at in RT, perl6 queue:
> https://rt.perl.org/
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> I just tried:
>
>
> > my $x is Int = 42;
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
> is trait on $-sigil variable not yet implemented. Sorry.
> -->
ve the feature, put "[NYI]" in the subject line,
for "not yet implemented".
You can of course track Perl 6 bugs at in RT, perl6 queue:
https://rt.perl.org/
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> I just tried:
>
>
> > my $x is Int = 42;
> ===
I just tried:
> my $x is Int = 42;
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
is trait on $-sigil variable not yet implemented. Sorry.
--> my $x is Int⏏ = 42;
expecting any of:
constraint
and was a bit disappointed. It took me a while and reading the book of
Andrew Shitov till I
# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string: [perl #131119]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131119 >
Code:
say 42; say +any(‘abc’, 42.5)
Result:
42
===SORRY!===
Can
# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string: [perl #130505]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130505 >
Code:
BEGIN (1, 2)[*-1]
Result:
===SORRY!=== Error while compil
My guess would be that there’s a string EVAL under the hood somewhere:
$ 6 'say "hello"; EVAL "foo"'
hello
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /Users/liz/Github/rakudo.moar/EVAL_0
Undeclared routine:
foo used at line 1
Agree that the error could be considered
# New Ticket Created by Alex Jakimenko
# Please include the string: [perl #128161]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=128161 >
Code:
say ‘Hello’;
*...‘WAT’
Result:
Hello
===SORRY!===
Method 'succ'
# New Ticket Created by Alex Jakimenko
# Please include the string: [perl #126630]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=126630 >
Code:
sub test { BEGIN { &?ROUTINE.name } }
Result:
===SORRY!=== Erro
ful Sorry! messages and I think there is some room for an
improvement to one. It would have saved me about 20 mins headache last
night anyway.
Bitwise operators in perl6 are not the same as in c, perl5 or other
languages and this can catch people out. I discovered a helpful message
with >
The problem was that '6;' was parsed as meaning 'no strict'. This lead to some
discussion on #perl6 and a change in the design docs
(https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/b7196bd240) and the Grammar for parsing
Perl 6 (https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/62266f7e20).
Nowadays there is no pr
66; :4foo, 6;); # boom
04:29 raiph m: say (6;)
04:29 camelia rakudo-moar 166cd3: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===Cannot find method
'flat'»
04:30 raiph m: say [6;]
04:30 camelia rakudo-moar 166cd3: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===Cannot find method
'flat'»
04:30 raiph m: say (6 ;)
04:30 camelia rakud
Hello.
I sent to the list the message to parrotbug, and later to parrotbug
the apology message to the list, sorry.
--
Salu2
Sorry, I forgot to attach necessary legal bits to the last two patches I
applied:
new n_arithmetics tests
Courtesy of Bob Rogers
[Patch] Win32 thread primitives
Courtesy of Vladimir Lipsky
leo
At 3:29 PM +0100 12/7/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got mugged by the flu, [ ... ]
[ ... ] Objects'll be the death of me, I swear...
I don't hope, that this is anyhow related to my checkins,
Nah--objects just hate me. :)
--
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got mugged by the flu, [ ... ]
> [ ... ] Objects'll be the death of me, I swear...
I don't hope, that this is anyhow related to my checkins, 'cause: "...
IS PROVIDED "AS IS" ... IN NO EVENT ... BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL
I got mugged by the flu, or something quite like it, on wednesday,
and I'm still trying to stay up and running for more than a few hours
at a stretch. (And digging out from the rubble of two kids who
*aren't* sick :) Objects'll be the death of me, I swear... Anyway, I
see there's more than one
I've started a new job this week, and between finishing the last one and
getting this going it's changed my schedule rather a lot. Settling down,
though, so I should be in a position to at least trickle out mail again.
I'll be draining out the queue tonight and tomorrow morning (GMT-500 if
you're
I'm digging out from under near two-weeks of p6i mail, and taking it
from back to front. If there are pending issues I've not gotten to in
the next few days (as it's a lunch and evening project) then pop them
back to the list and we'll get them addressed.
--
> I stated #4 wrong...it should be perlnum.pmc not >perlint.pmc
[snip exceedingly long unnecessary repost...]
It's late...I didn't mean to take up your bandwidth :(
sorry about that.
#! perl
use Parrot::Test tests => 5;
use Test::More;
output_is(<<'CODE', <
I'm writing a simple language to embody the concept of copy-on-write, and
so that I can learn how to implement it. The language is called COW and
it's at
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/COW/
Ben Tilly suggested I contact the Perl6 Internals folk and let you know
that this is an important feature th
At 10:28 AM 10/26/2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> >
> > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer
At 08:32 AM 10/26/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># More importantly, the answer to the preceeding question can be "Yes".
>
>So why don't we wait until we decide we don't have enough opcodes?
>Smells like premature optimization to me.
Note the answer was "can be", not "will be"...
Brian Wheeler:
# I've got a dumb question, and its probably because I've not
# been paying
# attention, so I apologise in advance.
#
# How does a program access more than 32 variables simultaneously? In
# real CPU architectures you've got main memory storage, but
# here we only
# have registers.
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
# >On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to
# my optimizer (or
# >
Sam Tregar:
# On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the
# right to punish
# > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my
# optimizer (or
# > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
#
# Actually,
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 09:57, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do c
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
Actually, a really lazy compiler will
On Fri, 2001-10-26 at 01:32, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
> >
> > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> > method "forgot" the last variant,
At 10:51 AM 10/26/2001 -0400, Jason Gloudon wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> > me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> > perhaps making me *write* an
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:54:32AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> What if I want my compiler to be lazy? Do you have the right to punish
> me for my laziness by making me add constant folding to my optimizer (or
> perhaps making me *write* an optimizer just to do constant folding)?
You don't have to
Tom Hughes:
# In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#
# > Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
# >
# > This is a fix which changes the way op variants are
# handled. The old
# > method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
# > gen
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
>
> This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
> method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
> generate:
> thing(i,i,i)
> thin
Darn it, I fat fingered the log message.
This is a fix which changes the way op variants are handled. The old
method "forgot" the last variant, so thing(i,i|ic,i|ic) would
generate:
thing(i,i,i)
thing(i,i,ic)
thing(i,ic,i)
but not
thing(i,ic,ic)
The new one does.
Brian
39 matches
Mail list logo
