Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

--- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5.8.2 and later have hashes that are deterministic until the data is > pathological. And the pathological checks kick in very late. Only 5.8.1 has > true random hashes (not 5.8.0) and even without compile time changes (IIRC) > you can always force det

Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 03:04:49PM -0800, Ovid wrote: > 2. Hash ordering is now guaranteed to be random (unless you specify different > compile time > options to Perl, something I chose not to do). Many of our tests assume that hash > order is > deterministic -- which it appeared to be prior t

Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

--- Tels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a time when you have to abandon old stuff and just use the modern > thing. I would be curious what the reason for v5.6 are - and if not most of > them are of the "we are to lazy to upgrade", "we don't want to", "it always > worked" etc :) Well, sin

Re: [PATCH] unused variable warnings in io/io_win32.c

Goplat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Attached patch adds the appropriate UNUSED()s to io/io_win32.c to fix the > large number of warnings it had. Also removed the unused function > PIO_win32_puts, which is no longer part of the IO layer API and has been > removed from all other layers. Thanks, app

[CVS ci] attribute vtables (was: Q: attribute opcodes)

Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shouldn't {g,s}etattribute opcodes call vtable methods of the object? Sorry - check in messages reads: attribute vtables (Shouldn't ask silly questions on p6i but first read pdd15 again) * implement speced vtables * change ops to use vtables * some com

[PATCH] unused variable warnings in io/io_win32.c

Attached patch adds the appropriate UNUSED()s to io/io_win32.c to fix the large number of warnings it had. Also removed the unused function PIO_win32_puts, which is no longer part of the IO layer API and has been removed from all other layers. (sorry for the duplicate message, forgot to attach the

[PATCH] unused variable warnings in io/io_win32.c

Attached patch adds the appropriate UNUSED()s to io/io_win32.c to fix the large number of warnings it had. Also removed the unused function PIO_win32_puts, which is no longer part of the IO layer API and has been removed from all other layers. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yaho

Q: attribute opcodes

Shouldn't {g,s}etattribute opcodes call vtable methods of the object? E.g a PyObject would very likely call property functions. The "surface" - vtable->setattribute or ->get - would be the same. leo

Re: class attributes

Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this mean that the attributes are shared per class, but the values > are different between the instances? Exactly. > Maybe I misinterpreted it because my > english is bad, but I assumed that "the same set of attributes" means that > the "keys" as well

{CVS ci] atrribute access by name

=item B(out PMC, in PMC, in STR) =item B(in PMC, in STR, in PMC) are done. leo

class attributes

> Hmm, I thought attributes are per class and all instances are sharing them? PDD 15 says: Attribute An attribute is a slot in an object that contains a value, generally a PMC. (Containing non-PMCs leads to interesting garbage collection issues at the momen

Re: [NEW] Stream library

Hi, On Saturday 03 April 2004 16:15, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > I meant object usage vs data in properties. When you derive a new class > from Stream its properties are lost. You can only reuse methods. > > I'd do: > newclass: > addattribute class, "source" > # and define .constant STREAM_

Re: [NEW] Stream library

Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > What does you mean with split? Can you give a small example what you would > modify? I meant object usage vs data in properties. When you derive a new class from Stream its properties are lost. You can only reuse methods. I'd do: newclass: adda

Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Moin, On Saturday 03 April 2004 06:09, Andrew M. Langmead wrote: > On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 03:41:20AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I am considering dropping support for Perl 5.6 in Devel::Cover. Whilst > > Devel::Cover basically works with Perl 5.6.1 and Perl

Re: [NEW] Stream library

Hi, On Saturday 03 April 2004 14:39, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > attached is a first working development version of a Stream library. > > > > Comments welcome! > > I'm not very happy with the split object/property usage. This makes IMHO > subc

Re: [NEW] Stream library

Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > attached is a first working development version of a Stream library. > Comments welcome! I'm not very happy with the split object/property usage. This makes IMHO subclassing a pain and isn't really needed. I'd use attributes for all this stuff w

Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 03:41:20AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > I am considering dropping support for Perl 5.6 in Devel::Cover. Whilst > Devel::Cover basically works with Perl 5.6.1 and Perl 5.6.2, there are > many parts which are difficult or impossible to implement, leading to > certain construc

Re: Devel::Cover - require 5.8?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Moin, On Saturday 03 April 2004 05:18, Ovid wrote: > --- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am considering dropping support for Perl 5.6 in Devel::Cover. > > [snip] > > I realise that some people, especially those in a corporate environment > > may no

Re: [perl #28170] [PATCH] marginally better negative zero detection

Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch makes the current non-portable test slightly less non-portable. Thanks, applied. leo

Re: [perl #28180] DWIM doesn't

Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I try to run hello-dwim.imc from examples/assembly/, it dies with: Thanks for reporting, fixed dwim and thr-primes. leo