[perl #37148] confusing imcc error message

# New Ticket Created by Joshua Hoblitt # Please include the string: [perl #37148] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37148 > The error message returned from imcc when trying to 'new' a non-existent PMC is misle

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:24:47PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: > I have added information on how to provide patches to > http://www.parrotcode.org > to docs/submissions.pod. > > Basically you create patches against > https://*svn*.perl.org/perl.org/docs/live/*parrotcode*/ >

Re: Object Model Pictures

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 03:10:55PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: > In my never ending quest to implement the Perl 6 object model, I have > started drawing pictures. Here is the latest version: > > http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/ > p6_object_model.jpg Awesome diagra

Re: Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 13:27:21 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > On 9/12/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi. These are superficial thoughts, before I've had time to really > think about the Big Picture. > > > 2. each block of code has a cryptographic digest, which is the

Re: Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

A proof of concept is available here: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/circular_prelude_stuff.pl And logs where I explain the guts to Luke are availble here: http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/perl6?date=2005-09-12,Mon&sel=785#l1413 -- () Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xE

Re: [perl #37100] [PATCH] Pod tests + fixes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: > In ticket 37104 you mentioned spell checking with 'aspell'. Did you > encounter words > that were not in the aspell-en 6.0.0 dictionary? If so it could be > worthwile to a special aspell-dictionary to the Parrot distribution

Re: tcl in leo-ctx5

Leo mentions on IRC that some tests are failing on i386 and OSX 10.3 (10.2?). I'm passing 100% on OSX 10.4. Can we get some test results on other various platforms? (Do we have a tinderbox again yet?) After building parrot, "cd languages/tcl && make test" should be sufficient. Warning: le

Re: Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

On 9/12/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Hi. These are superficial thoughts, before I've had time to really think about the Big Picture. > 2. each block of code has a cryptographic digest, which is the hash > of it's body with the digests of all the functions it cal

Object Model Pictures

Hello again. In my never ending quest to implement the Perl 6 object model, I have started drawing pictures. Here is the latest version: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/ p6_object_model.jpg (and for OmniGraffle users: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/ Pe

-help

Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you hav

Re: tcl in leo-ctx5

Ok. Workarounds removed (though the workarounds were working. =-) Looks like I've fixed PGE's glob - looks like it was just removing the 'compile' opcode. Amos is going to investigate writing a test suite for that at the parrot level. Also fixed all the other conversion issues: tcl is now p

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

Joshua Hoblitt schrieb: I'd like to propose that we fix the n! values listed on the examples page, change the code example to the snippet below, and add a warning about BigInt's requiring that GMP is installed. Hi, I have added information on how to provide patches to http://www.parrotcode

Summary for the last 3 weeks

The Perl 6 Summary from 2005-08-24 to 2005-09-11 It's been a while hasn't it? We'll start as usual with perl6-compiler This week in perl6-compiler Changed "??::" to "??!!" in Pugs Following discussion of the ternary operator in perl6-language, Benjamin Smith altered pugs to use

Re: Testing module madness

But if someone else helps you install the machine, then you don't actually need the level, if they bring theirs and use it for the install. I think that the build_requires/test_requires distinction *is* important, if it can be made, as it eases the lives of anyone wishing to package up modules,

Re: Testing module madness

I think actually you've bought a self-levelling washing machine and there should be no need for a level but if you value your kitchen and your clothes you have your own level, F On 9/12/05, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:35:43PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: >

Re: kwalitee: drop Acme?

Adam Kennedy wrote: David Cantrell wrote: Tels wrote: If I were to run CPANTS, I would drop that module like a hot potato at a summer campfire. Oh, and reduce everyone's K rating involved in the little prank by one :) I thought the whole point of CPANTS was to be useful to authors, not usefu

Re: Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 13:15:33 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: The circularity issue was not made clear in the email or the diagram. Here is what I meant: The prelude operators are mutually recursive at some point, and completely pure. An pathetic example: multi &infix:<-> (Int $x, Int $y)

Re: Testing module madness

Andy Lester wrote: On Sep 11, 2005, at 7:25 PM, chromatic wrote: I don't feel as confident as you do that if the tests all passed on your machine that they'll automatically pass everywhere. THIS is my biggest point. It's not about the quality of the code so much as making sure the code

Re: Testing module madness

Let's play devil's advocate. On the positive side, if you bundle the testing module, you can be more certain that your tests will work if the new version of the bundled module breaks backward compatibility, whether by design or by accident... If I *know* that my module tests properly with Test:

Re: Testing module madness

Chromatic wrote: On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 09:36 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote: If you do realize, but it takes you 3 days to update once mainline was fixed, and it takes mainline 3 days to update once Joe Random's patch was submitted, why should new users from these 3 days get a buggy, outdated versi

Re: Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 13:15:33 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: > To make things safe, when the prelude is bug fixed and the runtime > is not yet updated, the cryptographic hash of the function changed, > so it is no longer equal to the native one based on the way they are > paired. It should be noted

Unified prelude, FFI, multiple runtimes

Hi, please point your browser to "http://nothingmuch.woobling.org/compilation_of_circular_prelude."; ~ any().pick; My proposition: 1. *the* perl 6 compiler should ship a reference implementation of the prelude, that is circular. For example multi &*

Re: Testing module madness

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 12:35:43PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote: > >Usually, Test::* modules are only used for the test phase. > > I really don't understand the idea of "only used for the test phase", > as if the tests don't matter, or if there are levels of failure. > Either they install OK on t