At 3:23 PM + 3/22/04, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dam
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
>>>there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit.
>>>:(
>>
>>Unixen seem to support
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 10:11 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
>>Josh Wilmes wrote:
>>>It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm
>>>pretty much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at
>>>this point, but one which keep
At 4:32 PM -0800 3/10/04, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: *) Times (create, modify, access)
Just a reminder that ctime on Unix is not "create" time, but time of
last inode change. I wish there were a create time on Unix, but there
ain't.
Yup, tha
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: *) Times (create, modify, access)
Just a reminder that ctime on Unix is not "create" time, but time of
last inode change. I wish there were a create time on Unix, but there
ain't.
Larry
At 11:12 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit.
:(
Unixen seem to support system().
D'oh! It's C89 standard. I'm getting stuck in th
At 12:53 PM -0500 3/10/04, Josh Wilmes wrote:
It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm pretty
much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at this point,
but one which keeps us honest, even if we don't use it.
Nope, not a waste of time at all. It is part of the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since there's
no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit. :(
Unixen seem to support system(). So does Windows. I suspect that most
OSes we want to run on have something pretty equivalent, even if it
d
At 10:11 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
Josh Wilmes wrote:
It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm
pretty much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at
this point, but one which keeps us honest, even if we don't use it.
Miniparrot, or
Josh Wilmes wrote:
It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm pretty
much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at this point,
but one which keeps us honest, even if we don't use it.
Miniparrot, or something very much like it, is the final build system.
--
B
e of time. I'm pretty
much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at this point,
but one which keeps us honest, even if we don't use it.
--Josh
--Josh
At 11:39 on 03/10/2004 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal C opcode and inte
At 11:39 AM +0100 3/10/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Proposal C opcode and interface
While we need to do this, what you've got here's far too
platform-specific. From long, hard, unpleasant experience I can
guarantee that starting with a Unix view of this is going to generate
vast amoun
Proposal C opcode and interface
1) ops
stat (out PMC, in STR, in INT)
stat (out PMC, in PMC, in INT)
Return a new array-like[1] PMC $1 with file stats from file (PIO or
string) $2,
or PerlUndef, if file doesn't exist, $3 are flags:
.PARROT_STAT_NO_FOLLOW_LINK
The array(-like) has
13 matches
Mail list logo
