Juerd writes:
> For oneliners, I think I'd appreciate using -o for that. The module
> itself can be Perl::OneLiner. Things the module could do:
>
> * disable the default strict
The C<-e> flag indicating the one-liner disables C anyway.
Smylers
I'm writing a module to emulate the functionality of Test.pm but with
a Test::Builder backend so you can use TB-based modules with older tests.
I'm trying to come up with a name. The current working title is Test::Legacy.
Test::Compat and Test::Classic have also been suggested.
Thoughts?
--
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:33:49 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I notice that in Perl6 thoose funny  and  could be much more common
: than other paired brackets. And some people likes how they look, but
: nobody likes
while you weren't looking, Matt Fowles wrote:
>Lexicals, Continuations, Register Allocation, and ascii art
> This thread (and the ones that preceded it) have made me wish that gmail
> and google groups had a fixed width font option. Sadly, this summary
> will probably not get me it
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but talking about oneliners and short shell-like scripts, where `` is
> > pretty useful.. hm.. things good for oneliners are rarely as good for
> > larger programs, and vice versa. Of course, Perl5 proves opposite, but
> > Perl6 tends to be a little more verbose
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-11-22 through 2004-11-29
All~
Rather than try to do something witty about the strange music I am
listening to, or the stuffed animals who are assisting me. I will start
this summary off with an entirely self-serving request. A while
ago I saw the quote "
At 9:20 AM +0100 11/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Too many opcodes
Bluntly, no. Not too many opcodes.
This has been an ongoing issue. I'm well aware that you want to to
trim down the opcode count for ages and replace a lot of them with
functions with a lightweight calling convention. Well, we alr
At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Thomas Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:34 AM +0100 11/27/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
See also subject "Too many opcodes".
>> [...]
>>
Could you undo this please? Now is not the time to be trimming ops out.
When is
There is also such thing as premature "pessimization". I'm not in the
position to judge whether it is appropriate in this case, though.
Back-to-reading-mode-ly yours,
Michael
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:25:48 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:29 AM +0100 11/28/04, Leopold Toetsch
At 3:02 PM +0100 11/25/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Transcendental (and some other) ops that have a FLOATVAL out
argument and INTVAL source argument(s) are deprecated.
No, dammit, they are *not* deprecated.
Like the other numeric ops, this isn't your call. Leave them in.
--
Right, so with at least a basic rework of the string stuff in, it's
time to turn our attention to objects and all the stuff that goes
with them.
I'd originally thought that the bits we'd put in place would be
sufficient to do everyone's object system (well, all the languages
that we explicitly
Matthew Walton wrote:
James Mastros wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like
: qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ?
I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040420175551.GA16162%40wall.org&rnum=1clarify
> >
> > It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6. That's (the) one
> > key of the keyboard that we're leaving to user-defin
# New Ticket Created by Luke Palmer
# Please include the string: [perl #32676]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32676 >
make testj hangs on string_102.pasm. Here's the gdb backtrace.
% gdb parrot
GNU gdb
It's quite a disappointment in some ways, but we've lived with it in
Perl 5, and I'm sure we can live with it in Perl 6.
And I still think Perl 6 will have fewer cases in which it's completely
impossible for not-Perl to parse it. Unfortunately, fewer still implies
some, and some is still a pro
On Nov 28, 2004, at 2:48 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
I just thought of a heuristic that might help with register
preservation:
A variable/register should be preserved over a function call if either
of the
following is true:
1. The variable is referred to again (lexically) after the function has
re
Herbert Snorrason wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:48:42 +0100, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CLR, JVM and C/C++ implementations exists. As parrot is supposed to be
better for dynamic languages, I guess EcmaScript 3.0 would fit right
in with parrot.
I'd love to contribute. Could one write an i
17 matches
Mail list logo
