Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 10:41 PM -0400 5/17/02, Jeff wrote:
> >I'm about ready to commit the fixes to the current assembler, which will
> >finally make proper keyed aggregate access ready. Looking at the test
> >suite, I see some places where we use raw opcode names, such as
> >'ne_n_nc_ic'. I
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:01:42PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 04:25:39PM -0300, Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
> >
> > I will rewrite some parts once I (or someone) gets out a bug in the hashes
> > (I created a hash with 722 key/value pairs and ~360 got lost)
>
> I'll fix that b
At 10:41 PM -0400 5/17/02, Jeff wrote:
>I'm about ready to commit the fixes to the current assembler, which will
>finally make proper keyed aggregate access ready. Looking at the test
>suite, I see some places where we use raw opcode names, such as
>'ne_n_nc_ic'. It appears to be random, and I'd l
I'm about ready to commit the fixes to the current assembler, which will
finally make proper keyed aggregate access ready. Looking at the test
suite, I see some places where we use raw opcode names, such as
'ne_n_nc_ic'. It appears to be random, and I'd like to know if keeping
the ability to acces
# New Ticket Created by "Wild Cats"
# Please include the string: [netlabs #593]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://bugs6.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=593 >
Hello I am your hot lil horny toy.
I am the one you dream About,
I am a very
On 16 May 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 16:13, David Whipp wrote:
> > Aaron Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > You might not be able to REASONABLY get a length, so you return
> > > undef. In your documentation, you advise users not to take the length,
> > > but j
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:27:44PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 8:04 PM +0100 5/17/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:37:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> Pssst. Brent. Don't tell anyone, but ~0 *is* -1... :)
> >
> >$ perl -le 'print ~0'
> >4294967295
> >$ perl -le 'prin
At 8:04 PM +0100 5/17/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:37:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Pssst. Brent. Don't tell anyone, but ~0 *is* -1... :)
>
>$ perl -le 'print ~0'
>4294967295
>$ perl -le 'print -1'
>-1
>
>What language were we talking about? :-)
C, of course. Perl's
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:37:32PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Pssst. Brent. Don't tell anyone, but ~0 *is* -1... :)
$ perl -le 'print ~0'
4294967295
$ perl -le 'print -1'
-1
What language were we talking about? :-)
[Actually, this is a big area of :-(
Because perl programmers are used to wr
New!
See the list of open/patches in the bugtracker.
http://www.parrotcode.org/openpatches
(Next step is to have tickets where $subject =~ /\[patch\]/i
automatically be marked as patches -- so I don't have to do it by
hand.)
-R
At 9:22 PM -0700 5/16/02, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># At 5:28 PM -0700 5/16/02, Brent Dax wrote:
># >Dan Sugalski:
># ># Okay, I've checked in the final changes to this edit of
># PDD 2, the #
># >vtable pdd. Tine to rip into it^W^W^Wexamine it closely. :)
># >
># >I guess I'm first.
># >
>
At 9:00 AM +0200 5/17/02, Peter Gibbs wrote:
>A side effect of the split pools is targeted compaction i.e. the buffer pool
>gets compacted only when it is full, and the string pool likewise - this
>does provide a performance benefit in situations where one pool grows
>regularly and the other does
12 matches
Mail list logo
