On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> > > * list ops ( I think this is meant by list ops? )
> > > All languages that ha
I know KJS already answered this, but I wanted to try to clarify a
bit, and focus just on exception handling in PIR.
Basically, each opcode can throw an exception. If that happens,
control will unwind until it finds something willing to catch it:
.sub 'eek'
$I0 = 1
$I0 /= 0
say $I0
.end
Th
On Mi. 19. Mär. 2008, 06:25:32, kjs wrote:
> hi,
>
> attached a patch that does some aligning of "=" tokens and limits the
> scope of some variables.
>
> I don't commit this myself, because I want to check whether this
> practice of localizing vars. is ok, as it introduces "else" clauses.
> For i
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Ovid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Trying to work through the tutorial
> (http://www.parrotblog.org/search/label/tutorial) and am trying to
> finish Episode 4 with catch blocks. The grammar in Episode 3 has this:
>
> try-statement ::= 'try' block 'c
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> > having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
> > entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
> > s
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #52178]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52178 >
lolcode has some tests failing:
Test Summary Report
---
t/01-vars.t
Problems with auto::crypto have not reoccurred on Darwin. They have
occurred on Cygwin, but that's better handled in a different ticket. So
I'm resolving this one.
Hi all,
Trying to work through the tutorial
(http://www.parrotblog.org/search/label/tutorial) and am trying to
finish Episode 4 with catch blocks. The grammar in Episode 3 has this:
try-statement ::= 'try' block 'catch' identifier
block
'end'
I've trans
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:02:37AM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> The .++ form is still not a method (single) dispatch, just an alternate
>> form of the postfix, which is a multi dispatch.
>
> But the postfix is a unary operator, right? So that'd be multi dispatch on
> one argum
Failures have not reoccurred; resolving ticket.
Added dependency on 52154 because when that is resolved the problem on
feather will clear up. It already has cleared up if you checkout the
'norevision' branch and configure it.
There have been no complaints about the t/codingstd/pdd_format.t file --
perhaps because no one has used it ;-)
I've opened RT 52054 to do the actual work of making PDD files conform
to the standard. When we achieve a high degree of conformance, we'll
add pdd_format.t to the list of tests run dur
Larry Wall wrote:
The .++ form is still not a method (single) dispatch, just an alternate
form of the postfix, which is a multi dispatch.
But the postfix is a unary operator, right? So that'd be multi dispatch
on one argument.
How does single dispatch differ from multi dispatch on a single
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:46:29AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Is it just me, or is all this talk about precedence and functions vs
: operators vs methods creating a niggling sensation in anyone else's
: head? It feels like we're in the vicinity of another one of them Big
: Simplifying Idea thing
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:08:43PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> TSa wrote:
>> Another good use of the dot forms is to get a single character
>> form to tighten precedence: $x**3! != $x**3.! == $x**(3!).
>
> BTW, is the dot form only available for postfix or for infix
> as well? I.e. 3 * 2 == 3.*(
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:27PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> I deem that to be an unlikely failure mode, however. So maybe .++
>> is just gone now, and you have to write \++ instead. Any objections?
>
> Please keep .++ as outlined below. Does the degenerate unspace not
>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:32:23PM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
> Question: given
>
> ($x)++ # no whitespace, so postfix?
>
> is ++ postfix, or infix?
That is postfix. Any infix that could be confused with a postfix
requires intervening whitespace.
> Now, I think that
>
> $x.foo
>
> is
I cobbled together this:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pvdt32cKG2wmfq74DWgGwFw&output=html
which is using the data from here:
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/NoAuth/parrot/Overview.html
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
Is it just me, or is all this talk about precedence and functions vs
operators vs methods creating a niggling sensation in anyone else's
head? It feels like we're in the vicinity of another one of them Big
Simplifying Idea things. Unfortunately, I don't have the actual Big
Idea, so it could just
Jon Lang wrote:
Thom Boyer wrote:
That seems better to me than saying that there's no tab character in
say "blah $x\t blah"
Whoever said that?
Oops. I thought Larry did. But he didn't; I misread it. Whew.
Somehow I managed to read Larry's words and get exactly the *opposite*
meaning
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
TSa wrote:
Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y).
That's where we differ, then. I'm having trouble seeing the benefit
of that perspective, and I can clearly see a drawback to it - namely,
you have
HaloO,
TSa wrote:
Another good use of the dot forms is to get a single character
form to tighten precedence: $x**3! != $x**3.! == $x**(3!).
BTW, is the dot form only available for postfix or for infix
as well? I.e. 3 * 2 == 3.*(2)?
Regards, TSa.
--
The Angel of Geometry and the Devil of Alg
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
I deem that to be an unlikely failure mode, however. So maybe .++
is just gone now, and you have to write \++ instead. Any objections?
Please keep .++ as outlined below. Does the degenerate unspace not
collide with &prefix:<\>? That is does foo\bar() not mean to capt
Thom Boyer wrote:
And does dot always do that? If it does, then something odd happens.
Consider infix:<*> and postfix:, where infix:<*> binds tighter than
postfix:<+>, and both bind more loosely than dot. Then
I meant "... tighter than postfix:, ..."
1 * 2! # means (1 * 2)!
1 *
# New Ticket Created by "Joshua Gatcomb"
# Please include the string: [perl #52150]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52150 >
After learning that some folks were having troubles building parrot on
Cygwin, I dec
Thom Boyer wrote:
Now, I think that
$x.foo
is a method call, even if there's a postfix: declaration in scope.
And that's a problem, because, no matter what precedence postfix:
was given,
1,2,3.foo
is still going to mean
1, 2, (3.foo)
instead of the desired
postfix:(1,2,3
Cool - great to hear from you - sorry that it's been a while since I've
posted an update!
It'd be great to have you participate - you've done quite a lot for POGL.
Regarding your work/ideas on abstracting GLUT - definitely want to leverage
that - I'll let you know as soon as I'm ready to tackl
As far as I understand OpenGL, it's got one current context per
thread, and libGL does all sorts of evil things with threads and
thread-local storage to make it all work transparently. An
object-oriented OpenGL interface seems like the right way to go,
though, for all sorts of other reasons.
Tha
28 matches
Mail list logo
