On 8/14/07, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> > i started Bundle::Parrot to work towards the goal of removing all
> > external modules from the parrot repository. external modules don't
> > belong in the repository unless we nee
Committed to trunk in r20629.
Patch applied to trunk in r20628 Aug 14 2007.
Patch applied to trunk in r20268 Aug 14 2007.
Sandy Bultena wrote:
# New Ticket Created by "Sandy Bultena"
# Please include the string: [perl #44621]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44621 >
OK, I'm game!
Sandy: Check out: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ti
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 07:11:36AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> i started Bundle::Parrot to work towards the goal of removing all
> external modules from the parrot repository. external modules don't
> belong in the repository unless we need to fork them from their CPAN
> version. unfortunately, this
On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
see above. It would have been nice if gcc simply rejected the
attribute
so that testing the exit status of gcc would be sufficient. gcc-3.4
doesn't have this problem. The test could either be made to only work
for gcc > 3.3, or it could tr
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, James E Keenan wrote:
>
> > Bob Rogers wrote:
> > >Compiling r20605 last night gave me 69291 occurrences of a warning
> > > about warn_unused_result:
> > >
> > > include/parrot/stacks.h:56: warning: `warn_unused_result' attr
On 07/08/12 22:11 -0400, James E Keenan wrote:
> docs/submissions.pod states:
> "DO NOT paste the content of the new file or files into the body of the
> message."
>
> I.e., send the content as an email attachment.
>
> But whenever I have used the 'parrotbug' utility, I have never seen a way
> to
On 8/14/07, James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Cochrane wrote:
> > On 14/08/07, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why not just pull Slurp or File::Slurp into the tree? Yes, writing a
> >> slurp function is trivial but (bare with me here) if it's non-trivial
> >> enough to
Paul Cochrane wrote:
On 14/08/07, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not just pull Slurp or File::Slurp into the tree? Yes, writing a
slurp function is trivial but (bare with me here) if it's non-trivial
enough to be factored out into a module then it should be non-trivial
enough to n
# New Ticket Created by "Sandy Bultena"
# Please include the string: [perl #44621]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44621 >
OK, I'm game!
- Original Message -
From: "James E Keenan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 14/08/07, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not just pull Slurp or File::Slurp into the tree? Yes, writing a
> slurp function is trivial but (bare with me here) if it's non-trivial
> enough to be factored out into a module then it should be non-trivial
> enough to not re-invent the
13 matches
Mail list logo
