kid51,
On 05/11/2007, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch attached refactors configuration step auto::ctags to maximize
> testability. It also provides 3 test files to replace ptc's original
> test file. ptc's original functionality is, however, maintained intact.
>
> Assu
Patch attached refactors configuration step auto::socklen_t to maximize
testability. Patch also includes two test files which replace
placeholder file. Will commit to trunk in 2-3 days if there is no
objection.
Index: MANIFEST
===
--
The patch attached refactors configuration step auto::ctags to maximize
testability. It also provides 3 test files to replace ptc's original
test file. ptc's original functionality is, however, maintained intact.
Assuming no objection, I'll apply this in 2-3 days.
Thank you very much.
kid51
In
Author: kjs
Date: Sun Nov 4 11:54:16 2007
New Revision: 22709
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
Log:
[pdd06] add ":anon" flag to pasm grammar (this is allowed in pasm too).
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd06_pasm.pod
===
# New Ticket Created by Ronald Blaschke
# Please include the string: [perl #47153]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47153 >
Parrot currently uses indirect DLL linkage, which means that exported
data, includi
According to PDD19, the slicing syntax ("..") is deprecated.
This means that the following will be removed:
$P0 = foo[1 .. 3]
This will be replaced by the (now still experimental) slice op
(according to pdd19).
In IMCC, it's also possible to write:
$P0 = foo[1, 3]
According to IMCC.y, this is
1. Configuration step gen::revision was misnamed. It didn't generate
any files; it simply probed the system automatically. So I renamed the
class, which meant repositioning it within the order of configuration
steps in Parrot::Configure::Step::List and changing the names of two
test files. This
Patches committed to trunk Nov 04 2007 in r22699. Resolving ticket.
On Nov 4, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Cosimo Streppone via RT wrote:
However, just out of curiosity...
Would the attached test work as well?
I replaced all the code that does the "hand-testing" of auto::gcc
with the automated `test_step_thru_runstep()' function.
IIUC, that function does exactly what th
