Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I've added a check for too deeply nested stacks now.
I probably ought to get started on the stack-chunk-as-PMC patch for
garbage collection of stack frames. :)
The first question is:
Do we need such a limit check on the regi
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
>> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
>> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
>> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, righ
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
>> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
>> testing for warnings presence/absence on certai
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
No, its definately a test feature. Mu
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
> testing for warnings presence/absence on certain conditions.
There's Test::Warn, but I d
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> > Consider the following.
> >
> > use Test::More;
> > use Test::Warn::None;
> > plan tests => 42;
> >
> > To make this work I'd have to overhaul the internal Test::Builder planning
> > system to allow Test::Warn::None to s
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 12:37:36PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
> None,
Test::Warn::Auto doesn't say anything about its main purpose: to ensure
that you have no warnings. Instead it documents an implementation detail,
tha
At 10:33 AM +0200 6/24/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good
Parrot folk.
When calling a sub like this:
.arg 0
call _foo
It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the s
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:31, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> If you want to do it to a whole test suite, PERL5OPT=-MTest::Warn::None
comes
> to mind.
That's cool, I never saw that before.
It's also a pretty convincing argument for an "I'm going to add an extra test"
method in Test::Builder,
F
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 04:15:35PM +, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> This patch is necessary to get parrot to build with perl 5.00503 -- the
> mode argument to mkdir() wasn't optional back then. I'd apply it
> myself, but cvs doesn't seem to like me today, and I'm tired of
> fighting it. (My login a
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:55, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I like Test::Warn::None or some variation on it. Or even Test::NoWarnings.
> Doesn't have to sit in the Test::Warn namespace.
Test::NoWarnings sounds good to me. What is the correct etiquette for
abandoning a namespace? Just delete the fi
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 20:04, Andy Lester wrote:
> All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
> roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
> really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
Possibly...
...except how does Test::Harness know
All this "make sure no warnings fired" is good thinking. But why not
roll it into Test::Harness, and make it switch selectable? It's
really T::H that we want keeping an eye on this, right?
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I don't quite understsand what "spanning perl interpreters" means.
Neither did I until just now. I think it's the fact that forks will cause the
END to run multiple times. It would be nice if Test::Builder gave a method to
give us access
--- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This wasn't quite what I was thinking about. I was more for typing
> laziness (and avoiding cut&paste) - I'd like a default for the
> instance initialiser, but only to be used (by the compiler's code
> generator) if I don't specify a specific initial
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:02:50PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > class Foo {
> > ...
> > std::size_t spare = 0
> > std::size_t allocate = 4096
> > std::size_t min_readline = 80
> >
> > and have the compiler know that if I specify a member initi
At 8:53 AM -0400 6/23/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Okay, now that we're well on our way to getting sub/method/whatever
calling down and working, I want to point us towards what I'm thinking
of for exceptions.
Exception handlers really strike me as anonymous
Piers Cawley:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Exception handlers really strike me as anonymous lexically scoped
> subroutines that get called with just one parameter--the exception
> object.
So, we grab another register for 'current exception continuation'?
Then when code throws an exce
This idea seems to fit in a lot of places. It's more of a design
pattern than anything else, but one I think P6 can use to good effect
in the "standard library".
Lightweight Object Existance (LOE) Proxies
An LOE proxy is an object that proxies for another, heavier, object
that (maybe) doesn't ex
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:04:29PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote:
> > /me shows ignorance yet again.
> >
> > For those of us who are not hardware types...what is "the new
> > machine"? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote:
> /me shows ignorance yet again.
>
> For those of us who are not hardware types...what is "the new
> machine"? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market
> penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that,
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:14:52AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >
> > [...] Nobody answered, if we need another
> > Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ...
>
> I'd say "no". P6C is now compiling to an obsolete architecture.
> While we sh
Sean O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Rather, someone (me) needs to port
> P6C to the new machine.
Which is currently not quite possible. Someone (me;-) has to implement
imcc/docs/calling_conventions first - adopted for CPS. I'd rather not
have the HL spit out all registers according to
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > He's worried that the P6C tests
> > break,
>
> ... albeit this is still an issue. Nobody answered, if we need another
> Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ...
I'd say "no". P6C is now c
Looks good, except that this needs to make sure an int is being
returned, e.g.
+"42"-> 42
+"forty-two" -> 0
The lazy man in me would just shove it through an int reg, but that
loses precision if we go to bignums. Though for the moment I can't
think of a better way.
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:36, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> +1 for ::Auto.
>
> BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
> (via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
> testing for warnings presence/absence on certain conditions.
> (Avoiding to span
Fergal Daly wrote:
>
> Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly happy with
> None,
+1 for ::Auto.
BTW, what about modules that define their own category of warnings
(via warnings::register) ? It'd be useful to have a module to ease
testing for warnings presence/absence o
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 12:04, Tels wrote:
> > It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
>
> Uh - *hides in a corner for the rest of the day*
It happens to the best of us.
I've updated the docs to make this more clear.
Also how about calling it Test::Warn::Auto? I'm not particularly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 24-Jun-03 Fergal Daly carved into stone:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:37, Tels wrote:
>> Actually, I can see that Test::Warn::None could make the no_warnings()
>> line
>> obsolete by calling this automatically in an END block. So:
>
> It IS obsolete. I
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:22, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >> use Test::More::None;
>
> Typo?
Yeso.
> >
> > Can't nowarings() call Test::More::plan_add(1) or something like this?
> >
>
> Consider the following.
>
> use Test::More;
> use Test::Warn::None;
> plan tests => 42;
>
>
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:37, Tels wrote:
> Actually, I can see that Test::Warn::None could make the no_warnings() line
> obsolete by calling this automatically in an END block. So:
It IS obsolete. I DOES call it from an END block ;-)
F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 24-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
>> > Good idea. Too bad about the plan calculation hackery necesssary. :(
>>
>>
>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:43AM +0200, Tels wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> >> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
> >> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
> >> script didn't emit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On 23-Jun-03 Michael G Schwern carved into stone:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
>> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
>> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that yo
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> I'm looking for comment or suggestions about this new module. It's
> independent of and complementary to Test::Warn. It tests that your test
> script didn't emit any warnings. Just add
>
> use Test::More::None;
>
> to the top
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #22765]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22765 >
Hi,
when playing with the stuff in 'languages/perl6', I noticed that code like
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #22762]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22762 >
This patch is necessary to get parrot to build with perl 5.00503 -- the
mode argument
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Found the bug. Mostly MEA CULPA. A thousand pardons to the good Parrot folk.
> When calling a sub like this:
> .arg 0
> call _foo
> It's probably a good thing to take the 0 off the stack at some
> point.
Thanks again for your b
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More CPS shenanigans
> I get the strong feeling that Leo Tötsch isn't entirely happy with the
> new Continuation Passing Style regime.
No, I'm really happy with CPS. Restoring the whole context by invoke'ing
the return continuation is a very ele
39 matches
Mail list logo
