On 12/25/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> foo(
> named_arg := $value,
> other_arg := $value,
> );
I'll point out that Joe's argument is completely moot, because you're
not using $s on the named arguments. As a matter of fact, we could
double up the := symbol as both
* James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-25 03:05]:
> Why was I getting this error message running on one module but
> not on another?
>
> I googled for the error message. The pages I found didn't
> exactly clarify the problem for me.
Use the source, Luke.
I hit http://search.cpan.org/dist
I would like to report a problem I encountered using Devel::Cover today
and how I got around it.
In preparation for CPAN uploads, I was using Devel::Cover v0.55 on Perl
5.8.7 to do coverage analysis of two different modules I maintain. One
of these modules, Data::Presenter, has been under int
Joe Gottman skribis 2005-12-24 19:59 (-0500):
> sub foo($named_arg) {say $named_arg;}
> my $named_arg = 1;
> my $value = 2;
> foo($named_arg := $value); #Does this bind my $named_arg to $value?
Because the := is used in .(), it is not binding in the current scope,
but in the called subroutine. In
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:25:43PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
: Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and
: uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in:
:
: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html
:
: asserting
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: binding arguments
>
> Merry Christmas to you all!
>
> We use => for pairs, but also for something very different: named
> argument binding. Y
On 12/25/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys,
Sorry, it wasn't intentional that I was sending HTML emails; only just noticed.
Nick
Guys,
On 12/24/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 24, 2005, at 21:07, Nick Glencross wrote:
>
> > ... The configuration comes when the application is additionally linked
> > with null_config.o, parrot_config.o or install_config.
>
> This was an initial attempt that allowed
Merry Christmas to you all!
We use => for pairs, but also for something very different: named
argument binding. Yes, pairs are used for that, but that introduces
problems. The most important problem, that pairs sometimes have to be
passed, and sometimes have to be named arguments, is fixed with a
On Dec 24, 2005, at 21:07, Nick Glencross wrote:
... The configuration comes when the application is additionally linked
with null_config.o, parrot_config.o or install_config.
This was an initial attempt that allowed even an installed parrot to
find the runtime by linking a config file with
On 12/23/05, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Below are my thoughts on this patch in it's current form.
>
> I don't like the function of ld_libparrot_soname because it has the
> soname mixed up with the linker flags. I'd rather see something like
> ld_soflags and libparrot_soname (I d
On 12/23/05, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
> I'll try to take a look at all of this patch today. Quick questions -
> why is:
>
> +src/install_config.o [main]lib
>
> being added to MANIFEST.generated?
>
> -J
>
>
Let me explain my reasoning on this
On 12/24/05, Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious to know if the Perl 6 design team fully endorse a change from the
> Perl 5 "the (single) implementation *is* the specification" model to a
> "multiple implementations are good, m'kay, but from a single (detailed and
> precise) spec
Apologies if I'm Mr Magoo, but I did a bit of a search on this just now, and
uncovered little more than a pithy quote from Piers Cawley in:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/list-summaries/2005/p6summary.2005-07-05.html
asserting that "Multiple implementations are good, m'kay".
If anyone can point me to
14 matches
Mail list logo
