On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: This way, both associativity and junctive dimensionality holds, so
: I think it's the way to go. Please correct me if you see serious
: flaws with this approach.
Feels right to me.
Larry
It seems to me that that would just hide other problems. This function is
for comparing 2 arrays and if neither of them things passed in are actually
arrays then it's quite right to issue a warning.
Why is this test passing undef into both arguments of eq_array?
Fergal
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at
I've written some coverage tests for Ima::DBI as part of Phalanx, but I
get a warning under -W
prompt>HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-W make test
And got these warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ima-DBI-0.33]$ HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-W make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e"
"test
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:12:40 +0800, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> > my $a = (0 | 6);
> > say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
>
> Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
>
> 4 < X < 2
>
> to be true in any circumstan
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> my $a = (0 | 6);
> say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 < X < 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presuma
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:03:29PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Test::Unit, as mentioned by Curtis, has been abandoned.
>
> Has it? I thought that the folk on [EMAIL PROTECTED] had taken
> it on ?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PerlUnit/ shows some activity on the mailing
list. Its members-onl
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 01:57:09PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 10:40 -0800, Jeff Dik wrote:
>
> > So, I just commented out line 14 of jit/ppc/core.jit [patch attached],
> > recompiled, and ran "make fulltest". Only one test failed (test 5 of
> > t/dynclass/pyclass.t). I'm gue
Just for your information: Here are the latest test results on
Windows.
Ron
Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t\dynclass\pybuiltin.t5 1280 65 83.33% 1-2 4-6
t\dynclass
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:39:30PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Does this make sense?
:
: my @words = gather {
: for =(open '/usr/share/dict/words' err die) {
: .=chomp;
: next if /<-[a-z]>/;
: /$re/ and take { word => $_, score => %scores{ .letters }.sum }
Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
> Ron Blaschke wrote:
>> I haven't checked the details, but I think this will not work, as it
>> seems to generates a list of all symbols beginning with nci_, but
>> 'int_cb_D4' is used, too.
> nci_test.c is used only for testing. So there is no harm in renaming the
> sy
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Solaris/SPARC, I'm still seeing failure on the tests others have
> reported problems for.
>
> Failed 3/133 test scripts, 97.74% okay. 30/2167 subtests failed, 98.62%
> okay.
> Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pugs> ? 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
(#t|#f)
Here's my take on it.
Compare
my $a = (0 | 6);
say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
vs
say 4 < (0 | 6) and (0 | 6) < 2;
The difference is that in the first case the junction refers to the same
object, and the result should probably be expanded on
Belated response...
On 26 Jan 2005, at 20:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Ian Langworth wrote:
I'm taking a software development class this semester which will
involve
writing extensive object-oriented code. My partner and I are trying to
decide whether to us
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-02-07 12:10 (+):
> > Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
> > end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
>
> There currently is no such thing as precedence in regexes. Cha
Ron Blaschke wrote:
Why not generate the .def file instead of hoping that people add the
correct symbols? Here's a patch that seems to do the trick for me
(though not running Windows, I can't really test if the defines are all
correct).
I haven't checked the details, but I think this will not w
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-02-07 12:10 (+):
> Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
> end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
There currently is no such thing as precedence in regexes. Changing this
would make understanding regexes a lot harder, I think
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-02-07 11:45 (+0100):
> With some effort I managed to understand _which_ sense it should make up
> to this:
> > } ==> sort { . } is descending, { ..length }, { . };
> I mean: everything of what is gather()ed gets 'piped' into sort() which
> sorts according to C<< { . }
Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
The error of writing
/^(?:free|net|open)bsd|bsdos|interix$/
when you mean
/^(?:(?:free|net|open)bsd|bsdos|interix)$/
is rather too easy to make. This is not the first time
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Juerd wrote:
Does this make sense?
my @words = gather {
for =(open '/usr/share/dict/words' err die) {
.=chomp;
next if /<-[a-z]>/;
/$re/ and take { word => $_, score => %scores{ .letters }.sum };
}
} ==> sort { . } is descendi
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see. Does this morphing work as designed? Creating an array out of
>> an undef feels somewhat wrong.
> Yes and yes ;)
> A longer answer is: all operators currently need an existing LHS.
[snip]
Thanks for explaining things.
20 matches
Mail list logo
