tewk wrote:
Patch was to large to attach so: http://tewk.com/pdd15_testing.diff
Tests currently fail because they use the "new" opcode to instantiate
objects.
Fixing the 'new' opcode is the first change we need to make to get both
object models working simultaneously. Pick one:
- The 'new'
Patch was to large to attach so: http://tewk.com/pdd15_testing.diff
Tests currently fail because they use the "new" opcode to instantiate
objects.
So are we going to need a newobject opcode or an instantiate opcode.
I would prefer an "instantiate" opcode to
$P0 = get_class "Classname"
$P1 = $P
Author: allison
Date: Tue May 8 22:33:35 2007
New Revision: 18477
Added:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd17_pmc.pod
- copied unchanged from r18474,
/trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd17_basic_types.pod
Removed:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd17_basic_types.pod
Log:
[pdd] Reclaiming merged PDD number for
Author: allison
Date: Tue May 8 21:09:56 2007
New Revision: 18476
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd15_objects.pod
Log:
[pdd]: Differentiating vtable functions and vtable overrides in Objects PDD.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd15_objects.pod
===
Alek Storm wrote:
Attached a patch to bring that in line with the
rest of the patch, and also to s/vtable function/vtable method/gi. In
addition, a vtable method ISA method; it's just not returned by
'find_method'.
I actually changed every instance of 'vtable method' to 'vtable
function'
Will Coleda wrote:
If we're keeping :vtable, we need to update this verbiage (and include
an example) to avoid confusion.
On a related note, :method is mentioned in docs/compiler_faq.pod &
docs/imcc/calling_conventions.pod. If it's dead, it needs to be
deprecated; if it's not, it should pro
Author: allison
Date: Tue May 8 20:51:55 2007
New Revision: 18475
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd15_objects.pod
Log:
[pdd]: Adding a description of :vtable and :method to Objects PDD. Thanks to
Will Coleda for the suggestion.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd15_objects.pod
==
On 5/9/07, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking at PDD15, I see this paragraph...
> To override a vtable function, either add the :vtable pragma to the
> declaration of the method, or pass a named parameter "vtable" into
the
> add_method method on a class or role.
... which is kind of
To answer the questions for 03-revision.t:
James Keenan wrote:
1. Can you say a bit more about the context in which you ran this
test? 'make test'? 'prove t/postconfigure/*.t'? In particular, did
you run it *before* running Configure.pl or *afterwards*?
I ran Configure.pl a while ago (w
On May 8, 2007, at 9:23 PM, James Keenan wrote:
In r18473, I have just commented-out the offending test in each of
t/postconfigure/02- and 03-, pending further diagnosis.
kid51
Further coverage analysis indicated that the tests were contributing
nothing to higher test coverage. So I d
Author: particle
Date: Tue May 8 08:30:57 2007
New Revision: 18464
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd07_codingstd.pod
Log:
#42903: [PATCH] Add guards to the rest of the headerfiles
~ include reason for new standard
~ increase precision in definition
~ correct indentation from prior commit
~ modify
Author: paultcochrane
Date: Tue May 8 07:34:42 2007
New Revision: 18461
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd07_codingstd.pod
Log:
[docs] Added coding standard text concerning guard preprocessor directives
in header files. Patch courtesy of Mike Glines.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd07_codingstd.po
On general development styles, you've altered the spec, the tests, and
the code all in one massive patch. It's better to make changes in
smaller steps. That gives the whole list an opportunity to discuss the
changes, and accept or reject individual components.
If you have spec changes, it's be
chromatic wrote:
I'm not sure. As far as I can tell, res_lea.c is an unmodified file copied in
from elsewhere. If we modify it, we may have trouble merging in upstream
changes.
You're thinking of src/malloc.c. This is a Parrot interface on top of it.
Allison
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 15:02:34 Alek Storm wrote:
> No, with :vtable you define a sub of any name and use the :vtable
> attribute, specifying which vtable method it overrides if the name doesn't
> match the vtable name. Then you create a Class PMC and call 'add_method'
> on it, passing the name,
On May 8, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
That was after 'make'
Here's two more data points for you:
# realclean
$ prove t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revisionok
3/7 skipped: various reasons
All tests successful, 3 subtests skipped.
Files=1, Tests=7, 0 wa
On May 8, 2007, at 9:09 PM, James Keenan wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
I had similar failures here where I got '0' vs. some other number.
$ prove -v t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revision1..7
ok 1 - use Cwd;
ok 2 - use File::Copy;
ok 3 - use Fi
On May 8, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
I had similar failures here where I got '0' vs. some other number.
$ prove -v t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revision1..7
ok 1 - use Cwd;
ok 2 - use File::Copy;
ok 3 - use File::Temp;
ok 4 - current revision is all numeric
ok
On May 8, 2007, at 9:02 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
I had similar failures here where I got '0' vs. some other number.
$ prove -v t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revision1..7
ok 1 - use Cwd;
ok 2 - use File::Copy;
ok 3 - use File::Temp;
ok 4 - current revision is all numeric
ok
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:23:44 Allison Randal wrote:
> /home/allison/projects/svn/parrot/blib/lib/libparrot.so: undefined
> reference to `Parrot_allocate_aligned'
> /home/allison/projects/svn/parrot/blib/lib/libparrot.so: undefined
> reference to `Parrot_merge_memory_pools'
>
> Looks like these t
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:38:42 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Correct, I was only referring to the case where a PMC is a
> String holding a method name -- I've not really come across that
> as being a common case in the programming that I do.
It's likely more important in languages where method nam
I had similar failures here where I got '0' vs. some other number.
$ prove -v t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revision1..7
ok 1 - use Cwd;
ok 2 - use File::Copy;
ok 3 - use File::Temp;
ok 4 - current revision is all numeric
ok 5 - current revision is all numeric
# Failed t
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 17:39:14 James Keenan wrote:
> In my never-ending quest for complete code coverage, I had to devise
> a way to test both branches in that return statement, i.e., test
> under circumstances in which 'DEVELOPING' both does and -- here's the
> tricky part -- does not exis
Allison Randal wrote:
> This test seems to expect that the current revision and the revision
> where I last ran Configure.pl are always the same. Why?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projects/svn/parrot$ prove t/postconfigure/03-
revision.t
> t/postconfigure/03-revisionok 4/7# Failed te
On May 8, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Alek Storm wrote:
On 5/8/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With :vtable, you define a sub of the appropriate name and use
the :vtable
attribute.
Without :vtable, you define a sub of any name, add :anon so as not to
pollute
your namespace, somehow magical
Andy Dougherty wrote:
> The following oddity turned up today:
>
> t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING
> # Failed test (t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING.t at
line 51)
> # '0'
> # ne
> # '0'
> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 16.
> dubious
>Test ret
On 5/8/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With :vtable, you define a sub of the appropriate name and use the :vtable
attribute.
Without :vtable, you define a sub of any name, add :anon so as not to
pollute
your namespace, somehow magically get that sub in a PMC, get the
appropriate
class
On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:10:06 -0700
"Paul Cochrane via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A comment: this patch was in essence three patches (the pod, a test
> and a patch of the headers), next time could you separate them into
> three patches? The test was itself actually a new file, so it could
> h
The following oddity turned up today:
t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING
# Failed test (t/postconfigure/02-revision_no_DEVELOPING.t at line 51)
# '0'
# ne
# '0'
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 16.
dubious
Test returned status 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
I rea
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:50:14AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> We could entirely disallow barenames, so it's always either a quoted
> string or a variable.
>
> But even that doesn't solve the problem, because currently if the method
> name is a string PMC:
>
> $P0 = new String
> $P0 = "h
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
opcode. But that's just me.
That goes back to the philosophical question of "Is PIR a language to be
generated by compilers, or is it
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
hi,
IIRC (currently no pc around to check, but I realized this issue when
reading on objects pdd), calling a method in PIR can be done as follows:
$P0.'someMethod'()
but also:
.local string meth /* or maybe a pmc ?*/
meth = 'someMethod'
$P0.meth()
This is a long-standi
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Well, since I've only come across a single case where the
method I needed to call was in a String PMC, I've never found
it annoying. But again, perhaps that's just me and it really is
a big annoyance to other PIR programmers. :-)
Oh, I was talking about a complete s
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:38:43PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >
> >Well, since I've only come across a single case where the
> >method I needed to call was in a String PMC, I've never found
> >it annoying. But again, perhaps that's just me and it really is
> >a big
This test seems to expect that the current revision and the revision
where I last ran Configure.pl are always the same. Why?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projects/svn/parrot$ prove t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
t/postconfigure/03-revisionok 4/7# Failed test
(t/postconfigure/03-revision.t
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 12:15:51 Allison Randal wrote:
> Perhaps PIR's next stage of evolution is to split off into two
> languages, one for generation and one for humans.
William of Ockham told me to ask "What features of the PIR language suitable
for humans to write make it difficult for code t
Allison Randal wrote:
I've started working on src/gc/res_lea.c, after
removing the check for the no-longer-used flag.
I've checked in those two changes. On to the next step:
/home/allison/projects/svn/parrot/blib/lib/libparrot.so: undefined
reference to `Parrot_allocate_aligned'
/home/allison
On Tuesday 08 May 2007 13:38:31 Alek Storm wrote:
> It works exactly the same way as 'add_method' - this is the way the new
> object system works, as defined in PDD15. Since this makes :vtable
> pointless, I think we should get rid of it.
With :vtable, you define a sub of the appropriate name an
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:15:51PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >
> >Personally, I would think that the standard approach for going from
> >a String PMC to a method invocation would be via the find_method
> >opcode. But that's just me.
>
> That goes back to the philo
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Subject: [Vienna-pm] YAPC Europe 2007 Reminder - CFP and CFH Deadlines
Approaching
Date: Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 11:04
From: Michael Kröll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The deadline to submit Hackathon proposals for this year's Y
On 5/8/07, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How would one implement a vtable method, (referring to self), and then add
it to the object? You'd have to add an ":init :load :anon" block after the
vtable was defined in order to invoke add_vtable_method, and you'd need a
reference to the invo
Mark,
It's highly likely that I was wrong to indent your example. I've
noticed that particle has done some more work on the pod and he's
moved it back :-) Anyway, your work is now in. Good stuff! Thanks
for the help!
Paul
On 08/05/07, Mark Glines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Paul!
I not
Hmm. It seems there's more than one header being missed by
t/codingstd/c_header_guards.t. I'm going to try to supplement the
$DIST->c_header_files() list with items culled from
$DIST->generated_files(), or something, if noone can come up with a
better idea.
In the meantime, here's an additional
- Forwarded message from Michael Kr?ll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Michael Kr?ll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Conferences] YAPC Europe 2007 Reminder - CFP and CFH Deadlines
Approaching
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 11:02:55 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The deadline to submit Hackath
Hi Paul!
I noticed you reindented the example when checking in the PDD07
change. Sorry to disagree with you, but this seems wrong to me.
Elsewhere in PDD07, it says: "neither PARROT_IN_CORE nor the outermost
_GUARD #ifdefs cause the level of indenting to increase." So I think
the indentation was
On Mon May 07 12:55:56 2007, mark at glines.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch adds a bullet to PDD07 about headerfile guards, and
> adds a test to c/codingstd/ to check for existence, uniqueness, and
> lack of conflicting names. Then it fixes up all headers returned by
> Parrot::Distributi
# New Ticket Created by "Alek Storm"
# Please include the string: [perl #42905]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42905 >
I've attached a patch to implement vtable overriding for PDD15. The basic
idea is to wr
Alek Storm (via RT) writes:
# New Ticket Created by "Alek Storm"
# Please include the string: [perl #42905]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42905 >
I've attached a patch to implement vtable overriding for
On 5/2/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 2. The question I was trying to answer by poking around: what is/will
: be the P6 equivalent of P5's $. ? I assume the answer is a method on
: the filehandle object, but called what? Should it keep the P5
: IO::Handle name (input_line_number)?
On 5/8/07, Mark Glines via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat May 05 09:37:44 2007, particle wrote:
> On 5/4/07, via RT Mark Glines at
parrotcode.org> wrote:
> > * Standardize on PARROT_*_GUARD style names for these lines (some
> > headers used a style that looks like "__PIRLEXER_H" instead)
On Sat May 05 09:37:44 2007, particle wrote:
> On 5/4/07, via RT Mark Glines at
parrotcode.org> wrote:
> > * Standardize on PARROT_*_GUARD style names for these lines (some
> > headers used a style that looks like "__PIRLEXER_H" instead)
> >
> there's a problem here... compilers/imcc/pirlexer.h is
# New Ticket Created by Mark Glines
# Please include the string: [perl #42903]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42903 >
Hi,
The attached patch adds a bullet to PDD07 about headerfile guards, and
adds a test t
52 matches
Mail list logo
