--- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
> > --- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
> >>equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings,
> >>and Perl does, this is just
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
>
> > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
> > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
> > without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
> > w
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
> > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
> > without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live
I am currently completing work on an extensible regex-specific parsing
module, Regexp::Parser. It should appear on CPAN by early July (hopefully
under my *new* CPAN ID "JAPHY").
Once it is completed, I will be starting work on writing a subclass that
matches Perl 6 regexes, Regexp::Perl6 (or Perl
Absolutely correct. I was able to reduce the code to:
require B::Deparse;
B::Deparse->new->coderef2text(sub {})
The problem occurs because Devel::Cover overrides some of B::Deparse's
subs, but when you go calling them in a program it gets upset. The
solution is to only override the subs f
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:07:06AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> hi paul :)
>
> I recently discovered an issue with nested subroutines while using
> Devel::Cover with Parse::Yapp. the basic issue is that some subroutines are
> not discovered by Devel::Cover and thus no metrics are generated.
>
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:26PM -0400, Vsevolod (Simon) Ilyushchenko wrote:
> Hi,
Hello,
> I've run into "Can't call method "add_statement" on an undefined value"
> running Devel::Cover. Apologies if this was reported before, but the
> list archive is not searchable. I am using perl 5.8.4 a
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and
: String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints,
: and graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I
: would like to s
As currently designed, the String::bytes, String::codepoints, and
String::graphemes methods return the number of bytes, codepoints, and
graphemes, respectively, in the string they were called on. I would
like to suggest that, when called in list context, these methods return
an array of string
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
equivalent to what C does. Since C doesn't really have strings, and
Perl does, this is just one of those differences between the
languages where (essentially, and pe
With my recent checkin WRT bigints, Sub PMCs is_equal suddenly MMD
dispatches to the fallback function, result in "get_number not
implemented" erros.
Fixes really welcome.
leo
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> What's the task list for being able to upgrade ICU to something current?
> This is pissing me off sufficiently that I WILL DO IT once I know what it is.
>
> The one we've got is an albatross. It can't build with g++ on AIX
> (because it has IBM compiler
Paul Hodges wrote:
Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me.
If that seems odd
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:09:49AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> set up (Ask's working on it, so at some point we will have a
> compilers, standard library, and real perl6-internals list) we'll
Called "parrot-internals" ?
Nicholas Clark
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Time for these as well. There's a partial implementation of them in
types/bignum.c. I think it's time to move that to src/ (and the header
file to .h) and get it integrated into parrot.
There is now a BigNum PMC in CVS. It uses libgmp if present currently.
Other implementatio
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:18:49PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Fergal Daly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * I never have to type repetitive tests like
> > >
> > > isa_ok Foo->new(), 'Foo'
> > >
> > > again because it's handled by a base class that all
Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
>>>
>>> Although watching two people hit each other in the face with c
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:13:52PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:51, Fergal Daly wrote:
> [snip]
> >NB: I haven't used xUnit style testing so I could be completely off
> >the mark
> >but some (not all) of these benefits seem to be available in T::M land.
>
> Just so I'm clea
What's the task list for being able to upgrade ICU to something current?
This is pissing me off sufficiently that I WILL DO IT once I know what it is.
The one we've got is an albatross. It can't build with g++ on AIX
(because it has IBM compiler specific **OPTIMISATION** flags in the
default AIX c
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
Although watching two people hit each other in the face with custard
pies three times in front of a roomful of people may be a lot more
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:07:36PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> You are also circumventing the isolation part of the xUnit model,
> because you don't get setup/teardown for each test data. Possibly you
> don't care about that in this case, but if you did, you wouldn't be able
> to do the above,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
> can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
> any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
> fact it isn't going to be, it just seems
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... committed the change to ponie to keep it in sync,
> and then realised I'd not checked the entire parrot source tree for any
> other instances of these functions.
extend.h isn't included inside Parrot. I don't know, if there are any
embedders/extende
23 matches
Mail list logo
