Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
> On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
>> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
>> (which I found). I also added spectests that are marked TODO (but which
>> pass with this patch applied).
>
> I would prefer to see this done by us
On Mon Dec 22 21:51:05 2008, masak wrote:
> Patrick (>):
> > I would prefer to see this done by using a smart match on the :x()
> > argument instead of explicitly checking it for a Range and grabbing
> > min/max from there. Using a smart match would allow things like
> > :x(1|5|7) and :x({ .is_pri
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
> On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
>> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
>> (which I found). I also added spectests that are marked TODO (but which
>> pass with this patch applied).
>
> I would prefer to see this done by us
$*ARGS is mentioned in S02/S04 as being the magic filehandle iterator.
However, S06 refers to the "$*ARGS capture." Is there a typo somewhere?
Zev
I was confused about the "Toggle Cc" Javascript link. See RT for the
patch (should these normally be CC'd to p6-compiler?).
Zev
On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
> (which I found). I also added spectests that are mark
> What happens if you run using "parrot perl6.pbc" instead
No difference.
> of the perl6 executable? If you still get the segfault, how
> about trying parrot with the -G option?
This stops the segfault.
>
> How about if the code to be executed is read from a file instead
> of being run via in
There is a patch in RT #50550.
Zev
http://www.parrotcode.org/source.html claims the last dump was done in
Aug 2006. Would someone be willing to update that dump? I'm going to
be on a train tomorrow for 6 hours and would like to be able to do some
work on parrot with version control.
Zev
?? and !! could always return some kind of result object that boolizes
to true or false.
Zev
Audrey Tang wrote:
>
> 在 Jun 11, 2007 5:10 AM 時，Jonathan Lang 寫到：
>> A variation of chaining associativity gets
>> used, with the "chaining rule" being '$v1 op1 $v2 // $v1 op2 $v3'
>> instead of '$v1 op
If the idea of having an author attribute is to allow multiple
implementations of a module, why not add an API version attribute? The
idea would be to detach the module version number from the module API
version number.
This way, if I want to reimplement Foo::Bar, I wouldn't be required to
use th
10 matches
Mail list logo
