# New Ticket Created by Chip Salzenberg
# Please include the string: [perl #40200]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=40200 >
After the STM merge, all of t/pmc/threads.t succeeds (woggle++).
But one of the tests
On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q<
...
> }
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where "you just change the 0 to a 1". After
all, we already have #{}. Incide
Stuart Cook writes:
> On 8/19/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >if 0 {
> >...
> >}
>
> The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
> "commented-out" code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
> problem, though, you could always write your own macr
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: Perl6 Language List
> Subject: Re: NEXT and the general loop statement
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[E
On 8/19/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if 0 {
...
}
The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
"commented-out" code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
problem, though, you could always write your own macro.
Stuart Cook
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:57:09 2006
New Revision: 11155
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
Log:
List comprehensions via junctional syntax.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/s
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 16:27:16 2006
New Revision: 11154
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
Allow for switch bundling.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:58:20AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: It occurred to me that other day that in our "in house" C code we
: somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
: 5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
: code that you wrap
It occurred to me that other day that in our "in house" C code we
somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
code that you wrap it in a CPP if statement. The logic being that
if you haven't deleted t
Miguel de Icaza recently posted some thoughts about improving startup time and
memory usage of multiple Mono applications. What ideas can we steal and
improve?
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Aug-17.html
-- c
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:53:14PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: ps. Then there's the perl5-behaviour of "perl -n0e unlink" where also
: the intervening switches can get arguments. This could be expanded so
: that all chars for which there's no 1-char alias defined, are
: parameters. So C<-aHellobWo
On 8/18/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C<-abc> to mean C<-a -b -c>?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
(i initially posted this on RT, but since posts made by guests seem
not to get forwarded to the list here it is, only hope this message
goes into the right place)
Hi all,
I have applied the patch attatched to this ticket. Here's the outcome:
1) before the patch i did:
$ make test 2>&1 | tee te
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:09:21 2006
New Revision: 11137
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
conjecture about conversion of undef to NaN
grammo from Mark Reed++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:00:28 2006
New Revision: 11136
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
No such thing as a "first invocant" anymore.
Clarified NEXT semantics.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
=
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
: >this perl5ish:
: >
: >while (1) {
: >$num = rand;
: >print $num;
: >last
On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:27, David Green wrote:
> However, what I'm wondering is whether Order::Same is "but true" and
> the others "but false"? (Which makes cmp in boolean context the same
> as eqv, but it seems to make sense that way.)
OTOH, C programmers can as well assume 'cmp' being an
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C<-abc> to mean C<-a -b -c>?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
--abc from -abc, or you have to have some kind of fa
Author: audreyt
Date: Fri Aug 18 08:11:42 2006
New Revision: 11135
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod
Log:
* S13 and S06: Remove the mentioning of "invocants" for
multi dispatch; they are now simply "parameters", or
"important parameters" for dispatch pu
Am Freitag, 18. August 2006 03:43 schrieb chromatic:
> Hi there,
>
> Here's a patch for Build.PL that should avoid most of the pkg_config
> troubles on platforms that don't have it. I still don't quite know what to
> do on Windows when installing from outside of the Parrot tree.
You could always
On 8/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+To give both a long and a short switch name, you may use the pair
+notation. The key will be considered the short switch name, while
+the variable name will be considered the long switch name. So if
+the previous declaration had been:
+
On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
this perl5ish:
while (1) {
$num = rand;
print $num;
last if $num < 0.9;
print ","; # NEXT
}
print "\n";
22 matches
Mail list logo
