Author: lwall
Date: 2009-07-04 05:34:15 +0200 (Sat, 04 Jul 2009)
New Revision: 27399
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
Log:
[S04] allow certain value-producing blocks as statement prefixes
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
==
Author: moritz
Date: 2009-07-03 18:48:33 +0200 (Fri, 03 Jul 2009)
New Revision: 27385
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
Log:
[S04] 'constant' now scopes like 'our'
TimToday++ changed that in S03 a while back, and forgot to update it here too.
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:14:10PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
>> +When it happens that the same module is available from more than one
>> +authority, and the desired authority is not specified by the C,
>> +the version lineage that was created first wins, unl
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 09:40:12AM +0200, TSa wrote:
> I see. But I wouldn't make that an exception but ^^ returns a tristate
> value instead of boolean. The third state besides True and False is
> TooMany that evaluates to False in boolean context. But ^^ can react
> to it as you describe. That so
Created track ticket TT #804 as RFC with a patch that modifies throwing
of exceptions from C that might solve this problem. With it the pir
example runs forever.
Please put comments about it on trac, not here.
On Thu Jul 02 13:01:25 2009, julianalbo wrote:
> Created track ticket TT #804 as RFC with a patch that modifies throwing
> of exceptions from C that might solve this problem. With it the pir
> example runs forever.
Tested the original perl6 snippet with this patch, it also avoids the
segfault, FY
On Mon Mar 02 01:03:59 2009, ml...@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
> Rakudo 08b789048:
> $ time perl6 -e 'while 1 { 0.substr(-10) }'
> Segmentation fault
>
> real0m3.535s
Here's a pure PIR version; based on --target=pir and then trimmed down
to the bare minimum to cause a segfault.
.sub 'mai
On Thu Feb 12 12:43:59 2009, bacek wrote:
> On Tue Jan 27 06:10:21 2009, masak wrote:
> > rakudo: sub List::a {}; <1 2 3>.a
> > rakudo 36054: OUTPUT«Null PMC access in invoke() [...]
> >
> > I'm not at all sure subs should be called that way, but a Null PMC
> > access is always wrong.
>
> And i
masak (>):
> ok; let me just create the rakudobug first, in case I fail. :)
With some help from Tene++, I managed to sneak in a better error message
in Rakudo commit 468c021f. Resolving ticket.
HaloO,
Martin D Kealey wrote:
Assuming you meant "^^" rather than "&&", then under my proposal, that's not
the case.
Of course! Silly me, sorry.
In particular, True ^^ True evaluates to TooManyException. If that exception
is implicitly thrown, then that's what you get from the whole express
10 matches
Mail list logo
