Hello,
I have been working on implementing extension guessing consistently in parrot.
These changes make parrot much more usable, robust, flexible, and maintainable.
Usable:
the current parrot implementation requires the extension to be specified. First
what is a extension ? An extension is just
On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:42:30 Thomas Wittek wrote:
> What makes Perl hard to read is the excessive use of special characters
> (/\W/).
It also makes Mandarin and other ideographic languages impossible to read. As
evidence I admit that, though I am very smart, *I* can't read them.
(Try to ignor
Mike Mattie wrote:
I am writing up that proposal, and a far more extensive patch. I do
not mind the revert, I had asked for review in the RT.
To explain why I reverted, rather than let it go waiting for the full
proposal: I'm not comfortable using an environment variable to alter the
behavio
On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:51:35 -0700
"Allison Randal via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reverted in r18519. This feature is still being reviewed. (Previous
> patches implementing portions of this behavior may also be reverted.)
> Mike is writing a proposal for the mailing list to discuss.
>
> All
On Sunday 13 May 2007 16:30:23 Mike Mattie wrote:
> I am working on src/dynext.c and I ran across this in get_path.
>
> if (lib == NULL) {
> *handle = Parrot_dlopen((char *)NULL);
> It may be a RTFM, but what does a null dlopen mean if it
> succeeds, and why is it here ?
First answer
Hello,
I am working on src/dynext.c and I ran across this in get_path.
if (lib == NULL) {
*handle = Parrot_dlopen((char *)NULL);
if (*handle) {
return string_from_const_cstring(interp, "", 0);
}
err = Parrot_dlerror();
Parrot_warn(interp, PA
Thomas Wittek wrote:
> chromatic schrieb:
>> On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:06:43 Andrew Shitov wrote:
>>> What is nedded is a very simple step:
>> Contributors.
>
> And to attract contributors, you have to have a convincing vision.
> I'm not sure, if the (current) Perl6 specs are convincing enough to
My hunch is that while Parrot's *version* number (found in top-level
file 'VERSION' and reported by Parrot::BuildUtils::parrot_version()) is
important for building Parrot, Parrot's repository *revision* numbers
are less important. But *how much* less important, I cannot yet say.
FWIW, here a
My hunch is that while Parrot's *version* number (found in top-level
file 'VERSION' and reported by Parrot::BuildUtils::parrot_version()) is
important for building Parrot, Parrot's repository *revision* numbers
are less important. But *how much* less important, I cannot yet say.
FWIW, here a
chromatic schrieb:
> On Thursday 03 May 2007 03:06:43 Andrew Shitov wrote:
>> What is nedded is a very simple step:
> Contributors.
And to attract contributors, you have to have a convincing vision.
I'm not sure, if the (current) Perl6 specs are convincing enough to
attract the developers out ther
On Wed May 02 19:33:17 2007, jkeen at verizon.net wrote:
> See attached patch revision.patch.txt. Per discussion on list with
> particle, lib/Parrot/
> Revision.pm is revised to eliminate unassignable variable $svn_entries
> and one stanza of
> code associated therewith. Also eliminates unused v
Allison Randal wrote:
To answer the questions for 03-revision.t:
Could you take a step back and explain what you're testing? At first
glance, I don't see why we would test the revision number. Just to be
sure that Parrot::Revision got some value during the configure process?
I. The testi
# New Ticket Created by Allison Randal
# Please include the string: [perl #42938]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42938 >
Extracted from RT #42774, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I'm getting various panics and
> c
13 matches
Mail list logo
