hi,
I read that with the new calling conventions, there are a variable number of
registers. So, if I understand correctly, if a function call takes 2
parameters, then there are only 2, and if there are 30 parameters, there will
be a frame holding 30 registers. Is this about right?
How does thi
2005-09-30 Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
I would like to acknowledge that, despite all the good things that
have come out of it, I have had some significant problems in regards
to the past development of my Rosetta rigorous database porta
Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
There's nothing particularly wrong with it -- just as ther's nothing
particularly wrong with any number of other "we don't need thi
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
Shouldn't that be:
for [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
As
Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
Shouldn't that be:
for [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
As I remember it zip hrows
On 9/30/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
>
> for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
> ...
> }
>
> ???
Thanks. I missed that one.
However, I think your point is pretty much the sam
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:13:13PM +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
> Stringification again. Changing the tests back to using is_deeply()
> doesn't change a thing; same failure. That's where I give up. Where's
> the mistake?
There's not really a mistake, more that if a given reference is overlo
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 23:13 +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
> it looks like Test::More 0.61 broke Glib's test suite again, so I'm
> beginning to wonder if we're doing something stupid. Hence the
> question: How do you properly test an object's overloaded array
> dereference operator @{}?
Does d
Aloha,
it looks like Test::More 0.61 broke Glib's test suite again, so I'm
beginning to wonder if we're doing something stupid. Hence the
question: How do you properly test an object's overloaded array
dereference operator @{}?
When we initially wrote the tests, we simply used is_deeply() or
eq(
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote:
> Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
>
> > With a a fresh checkout (r9274) I get a number of errors where parrot
> > eventually
> > gobbles up all the memory on the system. Here's the first such one:
> >
> > t/op/gc
> > #
On 9/30/05, via RT François PERRAD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch updates PLATFORMS for MinGW.
>
applied, thanks.
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #37316]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37316 >
This patch updates PLATFORMS for MinGW.
$ parrot -V
This is parrot version 0.2.3-d
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 17:09:23 +0200, TSa wrote:
> And it is the type system that guaranties the availability
> of the required information e.g. in $!.
$! is polymorphic.
Since CATCH is a topcializer, and you use when blocks to case over
$!, you can check to see if it has the metadata you want
Eeek. Yes, I forgot just how crazy a language it was. :-D
> Yes, that's the plan, but the initial implementation isn't going to
> be a compiler like most people would expect:
>
> For example, something like:
>
> while {$a < 10} { incr a }
>
> while isn't language syntax. it's a command. So, this c
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 18:02:46 +0200, TSa wrote:
> I knew that the statement would emotionalize. Sorry to all who don't
> like it an this list. But somehow I found it describes the impression
> on the handling side somewhat. And I thought it illustrates that exceptions
> shouldn't be considered j
Austin~
On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
>
> >Austin~
> >
> >On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Plus it's hard to talk about backwards. If you say
> >>
> >>for @l -> ?$prev, $curr, ?$next {...}
> >>
> >>what happens when yo
HaloO Piers,
you wrote:
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
So that would be all exceptions then. They all get implemented somewhere, even
the ones that get thrown by builtins.
I knew that the statement would emotionalize. Sorry to all who
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
[ discussion on undefs elided ]
Since we can annotate our undefs now, perhaps undefs that would be
generated because there are no previous or next elements get "tagged"
as such. Something like:
# assuming $b and $a are "before"
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 10:19:29PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: In Perl 6, the match object $/ will instead be used. It's a bit harder
: to use with s///, because it will look ugly, but remember that you can
: always choose to use s^^^ or s[][] or any other of the many
: possibilities instead.
It's alway
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
The try/catch mechanism is not like the haskell way, since it is
purposefully ad-hoc. It serves to fix a case by case basis of out
of bounds values. Haskell forbids out of bound values, but in most
programming languages we have them to make things simpler for the
maint
> This small patch enables t/library/pcre.t on Win32.
>
thanks, applied (with minor changes due to a modified README.win32) -- r9281
~jerry
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
So that would be all exceptions then. They all get implemented somewhere, even
the ones that get thrown by builtins.
CATCH Exception { say "Why do you hate freedom?" }
--
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
h
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #37312]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37312 >
This small patch enables t/library/pcre.t on Win32.
François Perrad.
pcre.patch
D
Juerd:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
>> s/($search)/*\1*/go
>
> \1 in Perl 5 is bad style and emits a warning
The point was to give \1 and \&, in the replace part, a very limited
scope.
Maybe even better to limit \1 to the first '(?: ... )' in the search
part.
s/(?:$search)(?:.\1)+/\1/go
xy.xy.xy.x
Andy Dougherty (via RT) wrote:
With a a fresh checkout (r9274) I get a number of errors where parrot eventually
gobbles up all the memory on the system. Here's the first such one:
t/op/gc
# Failed test (t/op/gc.t at line 279)
# './parrot --gc-debug "/home/doughe
26 matches
Mail list logo
