Larry Wall wrote:
The Perl 6 perspective on this is that error values should be allowed to
be as "interesting" as you like. The lower level routine goes ahead and
pregenerates the exception object but returns it as an interesting
error value instead of throwing it. Then the calling code can ju
Since Perl6 is going to have infix min and max operators, it might be
a good idea to have an infix minmax operator, defined by
$a minmax $b === ($a min $b), ($a max B); #2-element list
This would be especially useful as a reduction operator:
my ($min, $max) = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Joe Gottman
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe mod should be defined in the conventional way: x mod y = x -
floor(x/y) * y, which does yield 0.8 for 3.2 mod 2.4. However, for
3.2 mod - 2.4 it yields -1.6. To get 0.8 you would have to round
toward zero instead of taking the floor, and that co
Ovid ha scritto:
I definitely think your solution is cleaner, but I'd be more inclined
to see multiple solutions to problems rather than clearing out previous
work. Not only does this follow the spirit of TIMTOWTDI, but it also
allows the tests to cover a wider range of behavior.
of course tw
I believe mod should be defined in the conventional way: x mod y = x -
floor(x/y) * y, which does yield 0.8 for 3.2 mod 2.4. However, for
3.2 mod - 2.4 it yields -1.6. To get 0.8 you would have to round
toward zero instead of taking the floor, and that complicates any
computation that crosses ze
At 17:35 +0100 1/9/07, TSa wrote:
>May I use this to remind the list that I proposed to define the modulus in the
>most algebraically pleasing way, i.e. in the Euclidean definition.
>(See http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/download/papers/divmodnote-letter.pdf)
>E.g. this modulus is also defined for Comple
Ah, this explains why I wasn't able to duplicate the bug on the SPARC
box Sun loaned to us. It's a brand-new box, with the latest Perl, etc.
Is there a way we could get one of our Cage Cleaners access to the box
you're testing on? Or duplicate the configuration? I'll check with
Robert to see i
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:59:59PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
: Jonathan Worthington wrote:
: >I suspect it's cheaper/easier for a compiler to generate code to check a
: >return value and throw an exception of its own choosing, than it is to
: >emit code to catch the exception and return the er
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> According to our records, your request regarding
> "[BUG] Punie test failures in set_node method on Solaris/SPARC"
> has been resolved.
>
> If you have any further questions or concerns, please respond to this message.
>
> For other topics, pl
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> The test file mentioned in the original report no longer exists: the
> structure of punie has changed somewhat in the last 11 months.
>
> Can you please retest, and if you still have a problem, please open a
> new ticket.
I have no problem with c
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
Following from this, I propose that we have distinct-looking operators
(not just multis) that users can explicitly choose when they want to do
integer division/modulus or non-integer division/modulus.
For example, we could have:
div - integer division
mod - in
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #41218]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=41218 >
compilers\imcc\imclexer.c(4310) : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
compilers\i
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #41217]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=41217 >
src\inter_call.c
src\inter_call.c(255) : warning C4098: 'fetch_arg_sig' : 'void'
function r
13 matches
Mail list logo
