What's the difference between 'v' and '' for NCI function parameters?
Here, for example, is the code for 'fv' and 'f':
static void
pcf_f_v(Interp *interpreter, PMC *self)
{
typedef float (*func_t)(void);
func_t pointer;
struct call_state st;
float return_data;
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 02:21:19 +0100
On Feb 4, 2006, at 22:04, Bob Rogers wrote:
[detailed plan]
>Sound good? Unless I've missed something, this seems like a win
> across the board . . .
Sounds very good.
Unfortunately, I may
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
I agree with Chris on minimising the amount of places we do security
stuff
as far as is sensible. However, I would think that the interface for
doing
sandboxing style stuf
Hello everyone,
This is my first post to the actual mailing list and not to Google Groups
(yeah, took me a bit to figure out they're not the same). I have a few
questions about the rules in Perl 6, and hopefully I'm not repeating stuff
that's already been brought up before. (I searched through the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
> >functionality would be implemented as OP codes
> >
> I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done wit
# New Ticket Created by jerry gay
# Please include the string: [perl #38515]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=38515 >
all PMCs (src/pmc/*.pmc) should be tested. the basic types, as defined
in PDD17 (docs/pdds
"Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
functionality would be implemented as OP codes
I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done with PMCs rather than
ops in the end. There's no real benefit in having ops - the
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics ar
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
>
> >It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
> >implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
> >portable.
>
> My outsider opinion is tha
From: "Robert via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:27:44 -0800
Passing to Ask to look at the bitcard issue.
Turns out this was a cookie problem; my browser was accepting cookies
from bitcard.org, but I wasn't aware that it was rejecting perl.org
cookies. I discovered th
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:56, Andy Dougherty via RT wrote:
> >
> > I too had seen this memory problem before on Solaris/SPARC, but I'm
> > pretty sure I saw it even when running t/past_node_5.pir directly.
> > However, trying again today, I'm happy to repo
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
portable.
My outsider opinion is that parrot should focus on exposing basic OS
functions (opendir, readdir, c
On 2/10/06, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, via RT jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ~ copyright text in each text file will be replaced with the new
> > keyword for expansion
> > ~ committers will be instructed on setting their environments to
> > understand this custom ke
Luke Palmer skribis 2006-02-13 9:46 (+):
> class Baz {
> does Foo;
> does Bar; # does this count as double declaration?
> }
I'd put composition and inheritance in a slightly different category
than accessor *generators*.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_bl
On 2/13/06, Amos Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there's a typo in synopsis 5, "Indirectly quantified subpattern
> captures:"
> [ (\w+) \: (\w+ \h+)* \n ]**{2...}
> I have a feeling the \h should be *, not +.
It looks like you're right. Thanks, fixed.
Luke
On 2/13/06, Yiyi Hu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For perl 6,
> Array and Scalar are in different namespace.
> So,
> class A { has $.a; has @.a };
>
> what will A.new.a return by default?
That's a compile time error. Both "has" declarations generate a
method "a", so it is a method conflict.
Luke
On 2/13/06, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2006-02-13 9:36 (+):
> > That's a compile time error. Both "has" declarations generate a
> > method "a", so it is a method conflict.
>
> Doesn't normally double declaration end in the later masking/overriding
> the earlier dec
Luke Palmer skribis 2006-02-13 9:36 (+):
> That's a compile time error. Both "has" declarations generate a
> method "a", so it is a method conflict.
Doesn't normally double declaration end in the later masking/overriding
the earlier declaration, with a warning, but not an error?
I'd expect
18 matches
Mail list logo
