On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:46:15 -0700
Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
I figured anyone who actually makes it from top to bottom of the RFC might want
to see what it
looks like in C code. Since I will be gone for a bit I am attaching my
in-progress copy of
src/library.c . It is n
As I sailed into Shadow, a white bird of my desire came and sat upon my
right shoulder, and I wrote a note and tied it to its leg and sent it on
its way. The note said, "I am coming," and it was signed by me.
...
The sun hung low on my left and the winds bellied the sails and
On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:46:15 -0700
Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
I figured anyone who actually makes it from top to bottom of the RFC might want
to see what it
looks like in C code. Since I will be gone for a bit I am attaching my
in-progress copy of
src/library.c . It is n
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #42964]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42964 >
This ticket is a placeholder for the 0.4.13 release on 19 June 2007.
On 5/15/07, Alek Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/14/07, Mehmet Yavuz Selim Soyturk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
wrote:
> Should we not be able to use an object that implements 'invoke' as a
> method of another object? There is some strange behaviour when I try
> to.
I see what you're saying, and i
On Sun, 13 May 2007 22:46:15 -0700
Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
[snip RFC]
Here is a revised and cleaned up specification of the search algorithm taken
from my current description
of the Parrot_locate_runtime_str function.
/*
=item C
Parrot_locate_runtime_str searches t
Hi all,
Here's what the NEWS will say for Parrot 0.4.12. Additions and corrections
welcome.
-- c
Refactored configuration system
- improved tests
- improved documentation
Better object support (PDD 15)
Language updates:
- abc
- Plumhead
- Lua
- Tcl
- Lisp (reclaim
Author: chromatic
Date: Tue May 15 17:53:55 2007
New Revision: 18563
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd04_datatypes.pod
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd05_opfunc.pod
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd11_extending.pod
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd16_native_call.pod
On Monday 14 May 2007 12:47:59 Mark Glines wrote:
> I removed it from the linker line, did a configure, build, and smoke.
> I detected no ill effects. (other than an intermittant "three alarms"
> thing in t/dynoplibs/myops.t that was there before the change.) So,
> how about removing it?
Applie
On Wednesday 09 May 2007 07:21:44 Andy Dougherty wrote:
> [appending to an old ticket, since if anyone wants to ever get this
> working again, they'll probably have to fix up the blind guesses I made in
> that old patch too.]
Thanks, applied as r18562 (er, oops -- r18561, due to an excruciatingly
On Thursday 10 May 2007 17:15:52 Mike Mattie wrote:
> I noticed that I dropped it. I went into the RT system immediately after
> sending and attached the file. It's a really trivial change but the
> patch is there, just two instances of free converted to mem_sys_free.
>
> btw passed harness on i68
Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
: A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of C with no block
: defined? I.e. is
It would be illegal syntax currently.
As I understand it, the proposal is to say that if the parser finds a
';' where it was expecting to find a control block, it treats th
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 06:20:05 Jerry Gay wrote:
> it seems F isn't used anymore, and can be
> removed.
Yeah, that's way old. Removed in r18559.
-- c
Am Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007 21:28 schrieb Nicholas Clark:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:10:09PM -0700, Mike Mattie wrote:
> > If someone remembers the magic to muzzle the compiler around free( from )
> > in memory.c please feel free to amend the patch.
>
> I remember being told that there's a trick in
On 5/15/07, Allison Randal via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And reverted in r18541. The patch is fragile. Broken on Windows, and
fixing it for Windows breaks it for OSX and Linux.
Whoops, I had no idea it didn't work on Windows. I have no way to test on
that platform. What was the problem?
On 5/14/07, Mehmet Yavuz Selim Soyturk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
wrote:
Should we not be able to use an object that implements 'invoke' as a
method of another object? There is some strange behaviour when I try
to.
I see what you're saying, and it looks like you want a functor. We can't do
exactly
On 5/15/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 09:08:47 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> eliminate some compiler warnings
> ~ all tests pass
>
> Modified: trunk/src/debug.c
> ===
>=== --- trunk/src/
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 12:31:08 chromatic wrote:
> From pmichaud:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/parrot/trunk> prove -v t/op/sprintf.t
> t/op/sprintf1..308
> parrot: src/string.c:727: string_str_index: Assertion `s->encoding &&
> s->charset && !(((s)->obj.flags) & b_PObj_on_free_list_FLAG)' failed.
>
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #42962]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42962 >
>From pmichaud:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/parrot/trunk> prove -v t/op/sprintf.t
t/op/sprintf
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:44PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
> the current scope as a block (usually with a parameter), for certain
> kinds of closure-heavy code.
Maybe this is a case for one of Mr. Lang's custom semicolons with
# New Ticket Created by Mike Mattie
# Please include the string: [perl #42961]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42961 >
This patch adds const qualifiers to string_cstring_free , and mem_sys_free.
In reviewing
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Jonathan Lang wrote:
:
: >Close. I'm thinking "added functionality for semicolon alternatives"
: >rather than the "replace the semicolon" stunt that Semi::Semicolons
: >pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
: >
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:10:09PM -0700, Mike Mattie wrote:
> If someone remembers the magic to muzzle the compiler around free( from )
> in memory.c please feel free to amend the patch.
I remember being told that there's a trick involving a union. Something like
union {
void *out;
const vo
On 5/15/07, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of C with no block
defined? I.e. is
given $foo { when 1 {...} };
equivalent to
given $foo;
when 1 {...};
Doubtful.
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the current
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #42959]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42959 >
On 5/15/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 09:08:47 [EMAIL P
Am Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007 01:17 schrieb chromatic:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm handling the release tomorrow, so please hold off on changes to the
> core code until after the release. Documentation and typo fixes are fine.
> Language changes are fine too. Not-too-invasive bug fixes are good.
>
> In th
# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #42960]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42960 >
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:22:25 jerry gay wrote:
> just below this code in that file, ther
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Close. I'm thinking "added functionality for semicolon alternatives"
rather than the "replace the semicolon" stunt that Semi::Semicolons
pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
prefix: and postfix:, I think that it would be quite useful for
postfix: t
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:22:25 jerry gay wrote:
> just below this code in that file, there's an #if 0 block i'm not
> responsible for. there vars were used only in that block. i wrapped
> them in #if 0 simply to remove the warning, while keeping the intent
> of the code the same.
>
> i agree that
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 09:08:47 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> eliminate some compiler warnings
> ~ all tests pass
>
> Modified: trunk/src/debug.c
> ===
>=== --- trunk/src/debug.c (original)
> +++ trunk/src/debug.c Tue
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:48:34PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
: No one mentioned that if it wasn't for sigils, many strings would be
: increased, length-wise, to do operator concatentation. If it wasn't for
: that then simple string insertions couldn't be used.
Well, except you can interpolate
Andy Dougherty wrote:
This patch adds a few clarifications to comments. And I'm afraid this is
how I'll have to leave it for now.
Applied in r18549, and many thanks!
Allison
On Tue, 15 May 2007 05:24:06 -0700
"Paul Cochrane via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14/05/07, via RT Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > # New Ticket Created by Mike Mattie
> > # Please include the string: [perl #42947]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about
Thanks for all your help. Interestingly enough the .perl method reports that
the parameter passed to the new method is stored in the object whether it's
defined as an attribute or not:
class MattTest {
has Str $.bar ;
submethod BUILD (:$foo) {
say "passed $foo";
$.bar
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #42954]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42954 >
it seems F isn't used anymore, and can be
removed. from the pod:
=head1 TITLE
rebuild.pl
>I think so (after fixing a couple of minor typos).
>
>Does this mean that you can only pass defined attributes to a constructor ?
>What if you want to pass parameters that are used during build but don't
>actually need to be stored in the object ?
Hopefully you don't mind my cc'ing the list-
On 14/05/07, via RT Mike Mattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Mike Mattie
# Please include the string: [perl #42947]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42947 >
Hello,
This patch changes the
Is this what you're looking for?
class MattTest {
has Str $.string;
submethod BUILD (:$string) { ## submethod BUILD is the constructor
## :$string is a named argument
"string"
say "passed $string";
}
}
my $test = MattTest(:stri
I'm trying to use a non-default constructor for a class under Pugs 6.2.13, like
so
class MattTest {
sub new (Class $class : Str $string) {
say "Passed $string to the constructor for $class" ;
return $class.bless ;
}
}
my $test = MattTest.new('abc') ;
This is failing with the fol
39 matches
Mail list logo
