> "PRM" == Patrick R Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRM> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to make a new low precedence assignment.
> Let's say we made it <-. Does that imply that there is also
> low-precedence binding :<- and compile-time binding ::<- ? Those don't
> look right. I think we're weighing making good ol' assignment low
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
> >> unary my problem. :)
> >>
> RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before t
> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
>> unary my problem. :)
>>
>>
RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
RA> And y'all wonder why we hate you dam
Luke Palmer writes:
> This patch adds support for:
>
> qq{} qq[] qq<> qq() qq}{ qq][ qq>< qq)(
>
> As well as qq// for any nonalphanumeric /.
>
> I know that qq() isn't actually supported in Perl 6, but we don't have
> options on quoters yet, so it's in.
>
> Luke
Thanks, committed. :-)
L
Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
And y'all wonder why we hate you damn yankees. Can't even speak properly
up there.
:-)
We should instead have a list attribu
This patch adds support for:
qq{} qq[] qq<> qq() qq}{ qq][ qq>< qq)(
As well as qq// for any nonalphanumeric /.
I know that qq() isn't actually supported in Perl 6, but we don't have
options on quoters yet, so it's in.
Luke
Index: t/02atoms.t
Luke Palmer wrote:
Now we just need to determine if 'my' can leave its post as a unary declarator.
Don't see why not... If you ever need it unary, you can just put the ()
back in.
The question becomes which is more common:
Scoping a single variable in a list context, or scoping several
variab
> "LP" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LP> Rod Adams writes:
>> Luke Palmer wrote:
>>
>> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
>> >parentheses in the standard swap:
>> >
>> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
>> >
>> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
LP> He
Rod Adams writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
> >parentheses in the standard swap:
> >
> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
> >
> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
Heh, oh yeah. I guess I wasn't so off suggesting <-, then.
Well, there's half the problem.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:09:24PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >>
> >> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> >> would allow to drop pare
Luke Palmer wrote:
We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
parentheses in the standard swap:
$x, $y = $y, $x;
$x, $y <== $y, $x;
-- Rod Adams
> "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>>
>> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
>> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
>> with initializer so one could w
This should actually be titled "Where are all the compilers?"
-
I haven't ranted in a couple of years, so I'm due. Ranting is
nothing more than broadcasting my emotions from a soapbox
but it is so fun, I love to do it.
Let me respectfully give my opinion. In no way am I criticizing your
suggest
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't profess to have thought deeply about type inferencing.
> But I do know that I don't want to turn Perl 6 into ML just yet...
>
> Larry
>
Speaking of ML, it appears to me that Perl6 rules are a mechanism that
can act
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Too bad t
StÃphane Payrard writes:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Hmm, but that kills the Perl 5 ability to do conci
Hi, folks
I've initiate a Perl6 document localization project called "p6l10n".
It's hosted in www.openfoundry.org (same as PUGS), and it's svn
repository
is in http://svn.openfoundry.org/p6l10n
We just start to translate the Perl6 synopsis to zh_tw.
If you are interesting in it, please tell me yo
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Most people use scoping functions as the top most function of the
corresponding statement AST s
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:19 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to capture
> STDERR?
I redid that patch, removing that dubious feature, and I think Andy
applied the second version. T::H::S now interprets any diagnostics and
associates
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to
capture
STDERR?
No, all my patch did was turn off buffering in the same way that
Test::Builder does.
Regards,
David
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:05:13PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> >The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> >a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
> >appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm willing to take
> >my chances
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 06:42:57PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> The TAP documentation in 2.47_01 says:
>
> A harness must only read TAP output from standard output and not from
> standard error.
>
> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> a reason for this bey
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:48:59AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Agreed. IMO the TAP protocol should confine itself to a single
> (arbitrary) data stream. It shouldn't even specify STDOUT;
> leaving that as an implementation detail makes the protocol more
> useful (ie., we should be able to commu
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #34258]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=34258 >
Hi,
in the near, or far, future there will be test scripts and compiler input
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:01:43PM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
> See attached diff.
Thanks, applied with some tweaks.
/Autrijus/
pgpJVsnhQUl7g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point
you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary
problem is
determining if the user has a working buil
Is is possible to check to see whether an attribute exists on a given
object, or at least catch an exception if it doesn't? I've tried to set
up an exception handler, but Parrot exits without anything being caught.
A code snippet follows:
.sub _main
.local pmc class
.local int type
.local
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> : > what context it was called in until it's actually called, unless we
> :
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> we should be able to communicate TAP via HTTP, SMTP, etc.).
TAP::Lite anyone?
/me ducks
;)
--Geoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:42 PM, chromatic wrote:
>
>> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
>> a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
>> appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: >
: > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
: > compile time, but often not
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:17:50PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: > >
: > > Lazily, for the most part.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
> >
> > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> > compile time, but often not
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
>
> Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> compile time, but often not. Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> what context it was called i
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary problem is
determining if the user has a working build chain. I think Module::Build
has code to do this and
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as find_method itself can be overridden, this above is merely a
> description of the default behavior, not a hard requirement.
Yes, of course. C *is* overridable and, as all method lookup
is calling C, the code can do whatever is needed. I'm
describin
37 matches
Mail list logo
