Luke Palmer wrote:
Austin Hastings writes:
Hmm. The text and examples so far have been about methods and this
seems to be about multi-methods. Correct me if I'm wrong ...
You're wrong. Consider my example, where via single inheritance we reach a
"layered" list of methods, each of which
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #25948]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=25948 >
the following code trips up IMCC's temp lifetime tracing:
.sub _main
goto L1
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Your code is fine. It *should* work. That it doesn't is a bug, which
needs fixing. For now you're going to have to work around it.
I would have swore the code was wrong. Am I being naive thinking that a
call to a sub is different than what looked like a call to a label. On
fur
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 00:58, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Have a look at the third initializer param - this is the offset of the
> item in bytes.
Oh, right. That completely slipped my mind.
> (Albeit untested - seems you got the code to test it :)
Okay, I'll turn this into a test case.
> NCI is p
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Okay, here's a quick scoop and status.
*) I'd like to shoot for a Feb 14th release. Names wanted. (I'm partial
to the bleeding heart release, but not that partial)
You can always find some reference to a bird in it somewhere
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm
We coul
At 1:12 AM + 2/3/04, Pete Lomax wrote:
Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03:
Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but I need to be told that there has
been no improvement in the last two months on this ;-(
Short answer: Don't do that.
Longer answer: IMCC ought to notic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leopold Toetsch) writes:
> It can be fixed. It'll take a lot of overhead. Following all branches in
> spaghetti code is a PITA.
>
> Just don't do that. Separate your subs in distinct compilation units.
And then you don't need to worry about the fact that Parrot running
computer
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 09:23:58AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yeah, I think getting the docs better will be an aggressive goal for
> >> the next release.
>
> > How's this all looking now we're in Feb?
>
> There is still a lot of outdated (or unimplem
Pete Lomax wrote:
Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03:
Sorry to be a pain in the butt, but I need to be told that there has
been no improvement in the last two months on this ;-(
..sub _main
goto L1
test:
$I1 = 1
ret
L1:
$I2 = 2
Okay, here's a quick scoop and status.
*) I'd like to shoot for a Feb 14th release. Names wanted. (I'm
partial to the bleeding heart release, but not that partial)
*) Namespaces are going to use the:
find_global Px, [key; key; key], final_name_string
format. I may add in a dummy:
find_glo
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20040201
Welcome once again to Gateshead, where the skies are grey, the view is
uninspiring, and the workmen across the road seem determined to fall off
the ladder before they get the double glazing fitted.
But enough of the gay Gateshead life
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:35:46PM +, Harry Jackson wrote:
> [... ]
> Question:
> Since Dan has said that objects are nearly finished is there any point
> spending too much time working on this. Would our time be better spent
> helping to get objects finished pronto.
I think so. It's basicall
Pete Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo clarified this as a problem with backward branch circa 3/12/03:
> Surely it can't just be me that thinks this is rather fundamental?
> How fundamental *is* the problem, can it *ever* be fixed?
It can be fixed. It'll take a lot of overhead. Following al
Chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is, to make the keyed struct work correctly, I had to add extra
> bytes of padding in the appropriate places.
Have a look at the third initializer param - this is the offset of the
item in bytes.
(Albeit untested - seems you got the code to test it :)
Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, I think getting the docs better will be an aggressive goal for
>> the next release.
> How's this all looking now we're in Feb?
There is still a lot of outdated (or unimplemented?) stuff in assembly
related docs.
WRT release :)
,--[ p6i ]
Jonathan Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Back from unwellness and the subsequent need to catch up with a stack of
> stuff, I finally found time to sync up my parrot tree and try a Win32 build.
> Turns out it fails in event.c with a whole string of errors and warnings:-
> events.c(6
Vladimir Lipsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Yep, that's right. As our PMC size isn't a power of 2, there is a small
>> chance that C and C are in different cache lines and
> Even if the PMC size were a power of two, it woudn't necessitate C
> and
Hi there,
While adding support for handling keyboard events to the SDL bindings
(see the attached patch; it's not for applying, as the documentation is
lacking and the interface exposes too many details), I discovered that
the alignment of members within a struct matters quite a bit.
That is, to
18 matches
Mail list logo
