Here is some perplexing behavior:
say "Foo";
hello there;
sub hello () {
say "Bar";
}
sub there () {
say "Baz";
}
This prints:
Foo
*** No compatible subroutine found: "&hello"
at lazy.p6 line 2, column 1-12
I would expect it to print:
Will Coleda wrote:
Right, the hard bit here was that I needed to specify something other
than "file". Just agreeing that we need something other than just
"file/line".
I'd have thought the onus is the other way: justify the use of
"file/line" as the primitive concept.
We're going to have
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Perl 6 perlplexities
Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of
Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the
complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6
pa
On Nov 15, 2005, at 17:24, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
"string_bitwise_*"
Leo, it seems to boil down to a choice between throwing an
exception or
simply mashing everything together and marking the 'resulting bit
mess'
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:28:30PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:32:38PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> : > > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
> : > > method, it's doesn't yet
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:32:38PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
: > > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
: > > method, it's doesn't yet define a C<__get_string_keyed_int> method.
: > > So, a statement li
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
> > method, it's doesn't yet define a C<__get_string_keyed_int> method.
> > So, a statement like
> >
> >.local string res
> >.local pmc match
> >res = match[0
On 11/14/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:59:51PM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> > it seems that in keyed string access to the match object, the result
> > is returned directly as a string. in keyed integer access to the match
> > object, an intermediate pmc
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
Welcome to another fortnight's worth of summary. We'll get back to a
weekly schedule one of these fine days, you see if we don't.
This fortnight in perl6-compiler
There was a surprisingly large amount of activity on the list, but
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> I'd much more prefer that a compiler (amber anyone ;) just emits PIR
> with debug syntax so that folks get a feeling how it looks like...
OK, I've done this.
I have modified the Amber compiler to generate PIR code that contains
debug directives, so that we can discuss a
Tonight on #parrot:
03:15 <@mdiep> meaning that imcc doesn't know it's being feed utf8
instead of ascii
03:16 <@Coke> mdiep: B***it. it knows the encoding of the string.
*) Parrot's compilers take plain old C-strings and don't know anything
about the charset/encoding of the string - but read
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>
> >Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
> >
> >That's an advantage for the week it take
On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
For the remaining age of the universe,
Err, I didn'
On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
Jonathan
leo
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 22:33 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> I'd much more prefer that a compiler (amber anyone ;) just emits PIR
> with debug syntax so that folks get a feeling how it looks like.
Good idea. I'll do it tomorrow (off to bed now).
Regards,
Roger Browne
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:59:51PM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> while adding some shiny new pge tests for return context, i came
> across this PIRism:
>
> ##...
> rulesub = p6rule('$:=(.)')
> match = rulesub('abc')
> .local string res
> res = match['A']
> print res
> ##
On Nov 14, 2005, at 0:02, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
* I'm thinking of a PIR syntax along the lines of this:-
The discussion goes forth and back, like all other discussion we
already had WRT syntax, months and years ago.
I'd much more prefer that a compiler (amber anyone ;) just emits PIR
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
>
> Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
18 matches
Mail list logo
