Bryan Burgers wrote:
On 10/15/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/14/05, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perl does have CPAN, but the problem is that there are no standard
modules, and so there can be several modules doing the same thing.
And what is the problem with th
Has any FOSS developer ever been found liable (or even sued)?
Not that I have any objections to this plan but it might be worth
considering that it's much easier to sue a single entity then it is to
file a tort against a few tens or hundreds of contributors.
Yes, the guy who wrote an open sou
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 07:57:16PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2005, at 4:28, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
>
> >- add correspondence to the bug stating that the patch was applied AND
> > the svn revision number.
> >- make sure that the bugs 'Tag' includes 'Patch'
> >- set the bugs 'Pat
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 04:34:50PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:26, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
>
> >Which is what I've been doing
> >but It's my understanding that copyright can only be transfered by a
> >written argument.
>
> Yes, and in fact we won't be doing copyright *tran
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Any problems here? Any suggestions for UUID code that's licensed
> appropriately for use in Parrot?
the UUID library in e2fsprogs might be appropriate. e2fsprogs is GPL, but
lib/uuid has a separate and much more flexible BSD-style license.
http://e
On 16 Oct 2005 03:46:25 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:38:55 +0200, Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Yesterday I spend some hours getting pugs to understand
> > translitterations with multiple ranges in each pair. E.g.
Patches floating and accumulating and I've not much time in the
foreseeable future to have a look at all. Fellow committers, please
apply locally, test, and possilby checkin patches.
Thanks,
leo
Well, here goes a stupid patch. Just removes the fprintf to the stderr.
If the function returns NULL on failure, callers should verify result.
Can't remember the name of someone who suggested right this. I just
needed to look a little more to the code to be sure it was the right(??)
thing to d
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:48:32PM -0700, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> 0 ... 8 byte IEEE double
> 1 ... 12 byte IEEE double (both according to endianess)
>
> We need additionally (at least and AFAIK):
>
> 2 ... 8 byte (ARM) mixed-endian
>
> which is according to Nicholas a LE double with 2 BE arra
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 03:36:04PM -0400, Jeff Horwitz wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > I'm planning to require a UUID in the pbc header which would make each
> > pbc distinguishable from every other pbc.
>
> i know mod_parrot would benefit from this. one question though -
Ok, more details on this bug...
on src/dynext.c...
PMC *Parrot_init_lib(Interp *interpreter,
PMC *(*load_func)(Interp *),
void (*init_func)(Interp *, PMC *))
{
PMC *lib_pmc = NULL;
fprintf(stderr, "Called..\n");
if (load_func)
lib_pmc = (*load
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #37461]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37461 >
Parrot bytecode (PBC) is designed to be portable. Therefore we need
some code to co
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> In the use case where the same pbc exists in multiple places in a
> filesystem (or is renamed during run, or lives on a filesystem without
> a good definition of "same place"), it's necessary to detect when a
> load is redundant.
>
> I'm planning to re
In the use case where the same pbc exists in multiple places in a
filesystem (or is renamed during run, or lives on a filesystem without
a good definition of "same place"), it's necessary to detect when a
load is redundant.
I'm planning to require a UUID in the pbc header which would make each
pbc
Hi there,
Here's a proposed patch (for review, not application) to generate
src/extend.c from vtable.tbl. It has some limitations:
- I'm not sure if the Makefile magic is perfect
- it doesn't pick up all of the C types used in vtable.tbl
- it makes everything it understands in that file availabl
On Oct 12, 2005, at 4:28, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
Hi Folks,
As part of my RT 'clean-up' project I've been trying to get bug
metadata
into a consistent state. Maybe someday we'll be able to generate some
worthless statistics that will look pretty in a presentation. :)
I appreciate this ver m
On Oct 17, 2005, at 18:37, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
t/op/debuginfo.NOK 7# Failed test
(t/op/debuginfo.t at line 165)
Yep I saw that too. I'll investigate it further after more
variable-sized reg frame patches are in (if no one is faster at least
;-)
leo
On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:32 PM, TSa wrote:
This also means that they would not (directly) be inheritable
since inheritence moves along superclass lines, and not with
@ISA. I am also not sure what you mean about multi-methods
either, could you please explain more?
Symmetric MMD at least h
HaloO,
Stevan Little wrote:
Now, as for class methods, I suppose it is possible to just stash then
in the classes symbol table like with variables. However, do we then
loose the method call syntax?
I think not. But the current notion seems to drift closer to my
idea of "free methods" versus
t/op/debuginfo.NOK 7# Failed test (t/op/debuginfo.t
at line 165)
# 'maximum recursion depth exceeded
# current instr.: 'main' pc 7 (/home/ambs/tmp/parrot/t/op/debuginfo_7.pir:2)
# called from Sub 'main' pc 7 (/home/ambs/tmp/parrot/t/op/debuginfo_7.pir:2)
#
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 17 October 2005 16:45, Tels wrote:
> Moin,
>
> I haven't had any feedback on this message:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/7daba8b786b58838?dmode=sourc
>e&hl=en
Aaargl, I mean of course this message:
http://groups.google.com/gro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
I haven't had any feedback on this message:
http://groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/7daba8b786b58838?dmode=source&hl=en
Did I miss it while I was away, or did nobody have to say anything about
it? :)
Best wishes,
Tels
- --
Signed on Mon Oct 17 1
On 2005-10-15 15:28, "Ilmari Vacklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 09:49:30AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 07:39:36PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
>> : IMHO just call it "self" (by default) and be done with it. :)
>>
>> Let it be so.
>
> Somewhat off-ta
On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:26, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
Does sticking "Copyright The Perl Foundation" at the top of a file
constitute a legal transfer of copyright?
No, there's no such thing as an implicit transfer of copyright rights.
Which is what I've been doing
but It's my understanding that co
"François PERRAD (via RT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
$ ./parrot -V
This is parrot version 0.3.0-devel (r9493) built for i386-linux.
$ make hello
./parrot -o examples/assembly/hello.o examples/assembly/hello.pbc
make EXEC=examples/assembly/hello exec
c++ -o examples/assembly/hello -L/usr/local
Miroslav
On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what bothers me most about this is that it seems there is
no way to tell the difference between class methods and instance
methods. That the distinction is only made when the body of the
metho
Let me try reposting the patch, which gives me the opportunity to bit
twiddle a bit more:
* Removed the mmap nonsense which was sent by accident
* Renamed config.c to config_string.c to make it less generic
* Moved a couple externs from a core parrot library into the main
executable, where
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what bothers me most about this is that it seems there is no
way to tell the difference between class methods and instance
methods. That the distinction is only made when the body of the
method does something which is is not supposed to do (method called
Applied as r9496. Thanks.
-J
I promptly sent a follow-up after I spotted this, but it didn't seem
to make it into RT. Well spotted! (I'd been checking that an
HP-UX-related patch didn't break things)
I also think that it would also be cleaner to move the lines
const char* parrot_config_ptr;
unsigned int parrot_config_size;
# New Ticket Created by Joshua Hoblitt
# Please include the string: [perl #37458]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37458 >
This transaction appears to have no contentThis patch adds a new function named check
# New Ticket Created by Simon Vogl
# Please include the string: [perl #37457]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37457 >
This seems to solve it - the tests now run successfully:
"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/par
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #37455]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37455 >
$ ./parrot -V
This is parrot version 0.3.0-devel (r9493) built for i386-linux.
$ m
Hi Folks,
As part of my RT cleanup, I've decided that TODO bugs should have there
status set to 'open'. The rational behind this is two fold: a) if it's
really a valid TODO item then it is an open issue (where as new TODO
item would theoretically be pending review) and b) to reduce the number
of
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Nick Glencross wrote:
> Here's an updated version of a patch to change how parrot picks up its
> built-in configuration values. They are currently picked up by the
> parrot library through globals linked against the executable.
>
> This patch changes the
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 11:46:25AM +0200, Fran?ois PERRAD wrote:
> At 21:09 04/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 06 23:49:58 2005]:
> >>
> >>
> >> The following problem is the same that in [perl #35388],
> >> so the patch for root.in tries to generalize the solution.
> >>
>
Does sticking "Copyright The Perl Foundation" at the top of a file
constitute a legal transfer of copyright? Which is what I've been doing
but It's my understanding that copyright can only be transfered by a
written argument. This next statement isn't intending to stir up a
flame-war but does TPF
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 11:09:38AM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
> > According to our records, your request regarding
> > "[BUG] Parrot 0.3.0 t/pmc/io.t assert core dump"
> > has been resolved.
>
> According to my records, it's a TODO test and therefore not qu
38 matches
Mail list logo
