On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:22:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: I was wondering about the semantics of coercion of non-numbers, so I
: experimented with the interactive Pugs on feather:
:
: pugs> +"42"
: 42.0
: pugs> +"x42"
: 0.0
:
: I assume that pugs is assuming "no fail" in the interactive envi
Hiya,
On Mon Mar 05 10:32:33 2007, coke wrote:
> (all paths relative to languages/tcl)
>
> First, do a make test in tcl to get a baseline as some tests are
> failing.
languages/tcl$ make test | tee /tmp/OUTPUT
> The stub files in src/builtin/*.pir need to be relocated to
> runtime/builtin/*.pir;
On 2/27/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
David Green wrote:
So I end up back at one of Larry's older ideas, which basically is:
[] for counting, {} for keys.
What if you want to mix the two? "I want the third element of row
5". In my proposal, that would be "@array[5, *[2]]"; in your
proposal, ther
Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 5 19:01:16 2007
New Revision: 14311
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
the change back from .give to .leave was incomplete as noted by rhr++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
=
FYI:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 7:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Mar 20th, Matt Diephouse (mdiep)
-- Apr 17th, Will Coleda (coke)
+- Mar 20th, Will Coleda (coke)
+- Apr 17th, Matt Diephouse (mdiep)
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 09:01:13AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't see a problem here. I think you maybe missed the bit that says:
>
> A C block sees the lexical scope in which it was defined, but
> its caller is the dynamic location that threw the exception. That is,
> the stack
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:06:46PM +, Daniel Hulme wrote:
: What happens if a resumable exception is propagated through a block with
: a LEAVE, KEEP, or UNDO block? S04 seems to be a bit vague on this point.
: It strikes me that what we want it to do is not execute them when the
: exception is
Author: nicholas
Date: Mon Mar 5 10:35:04 2007
New Revision: 17350
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd15_objects.pod
Log:
A few spelling corrections.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd15_objects.pod
==
--- trunk/do
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #41707]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=41707 >
(all paths relative to languages/tcl)
First, do a make test in tcl to get a baseline as
Author: mdiep
Date: Mon Mar 5 08:17:26 2007
New Revision: 17348
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd15_objects.pod
Log:
[pdd15]: A few small fixes to the Object PDD
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd15_objects.pod
==
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote on 05/03/2007 16:48:
On 3/5/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i disagree. the reason C, C and C were
deprecated is because they're non-ansi. therefore, microsoft renamed
it to C<_strdup>. since we've pledged ansi (aka c89) c compliance, we
should be following a simila
On 3/5/07, Philip Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the string functions which it does claim are unsafe (strcpy, strcat,
etc), it warns "This function or variable may be unsafe. Consider using
strcpy_s instead" and provides the _s alternatives; but strdup isn't one
of those functions. A call
I was wondering about the semantics of coercion of non-numbers, so I
experimented with the interactive Pugs on feather:
pugs> +"42"
42.0
pugs> +"x42"
0.0
I assume that pugs is assuming "no fail" in the interactive environment.
However, Is "0.0" the correct answer, or should it be one of "undef
I believe that VS2005 Has a new snprintf_s, strcpy_s etc that are
suppose to be secure
See:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8ef0s5kh(VS.80).aspx.
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=6995&SiteID=1.
Kevin
Philip Taylor wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote on 05/03/2007 16:48:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:48:57PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> On 3/5/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >instead of disabling the *valid* compiler warning, i suggest that
> >either we modify our coding standard to allow C, or we rename
> >all usage to C<_strdup> and #define as appropri
On 3/5/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/5/07, Kevin Tew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE on the compiler command line is
> probably the right solution here.
> Kevin
>
i disagree. the reason C, C and C were
deprecated is because they're non-ansi. therefo
Author: audreyt
Date: Mon Mar 5 08:27:24 2007
New Revision: 14310
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
* S12: Clarify that VAR(1) and VAR(@foo) are simply no-ops;
i.e., it applies to thiings other than Scalars, too.
Also fixed the postfix macro name and nomenclature
Author: audreyt
Date: Mon Mar 5 08:20:56 2007
New Revision: 14309
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
* S05: Minor fixup for this sentence no verb.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/desi
On 3/5/07, Kevin Tew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE on the compiler command line is
probably the right solution here.
Kevin
i disagree. the reason C, C and C were
deprecated is because they're non-ansi. therefore, microsoft renamed
it to C<_strdup>. since we've ple
Defining _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE on the compiler command line is
probably the right solution here.
Kevin
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote:
Hi,
Applied in 17281, thanks.
For your question, strdup is fine since these are not garbage
collectable strings (STRING*), just norm
Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:13:16PM +1030, Tom Lanyon wrote:
: Sounds like the following will work, but it doesn't seem 'nice'.
:
: for @invoice
: {
: .process;
: 1;
: } or fail 'No invoices to process';
Still think if there's no invoices it logically should be tested first.
I
Parrot Bug Summary
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/NoAuth/parrot/Overview.html
Generated at Mon Mar 5 14:00:02 2007 GMT
---
* Numbers
* New Issues
* Overview of Open Issues
* Ticket Status By Version
* Requestors with mo
What happens if a resumable exception is propagated through a block with
a LEAVE, KEEP, or UNDO block? S04 seems to be a bit vague on this point.
It strikes me that what we want it to do is not execute them when the
exception is propagated, because we don't know whether it's going to be
resumed or
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #41704]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=41704 >
This morning I encountered test failures when running 'make test' in
three scripts:
t
[Same note as in RT 41688]
I am pulling this patch from submission for the time being. When I
originally submitted the refactored tools/build/ops2c.pl and
lib/Parrot/Ops2c/Utils.pm over a week ago, they were passing their own
tests as well as those in 'make test'.
However, something outside thes
I am pulling this patch from submission for the time being. When I
originally submitted the refactored tools/build/ops2c.pl and
lib/Parrot/Ops2c/Utils.pm over a week ago, they were passing their own
tests as well as those in 'make test'.
However, something outside these patches must have changed
This week on the Perl 6 mailing lists
"'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must
naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be... :-) "
-- Larry Wall
"Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even
refer to itself. I c
Here are some notes which I have made which may prove useful in the
refactoring of Parrot::Distribution. I hope that I have grepped and
acked accurately, but I'm not guaranteeing 100% accuracy.
kid51
NAME
Parrot::Distribution refactoring notes
ANALYSIS OF PACKAGE
* used by:
28 matches
Mail list logo
