At 10:48 AM +0200 8/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
... For PerlHash, P0["foo";3] seems to be interpreted as an
iterator access? I hope there's some other way of indicating that.
Yep, KEY_integer_FLAG used to indicate, get me the next key and is
used by the iterator. But as your te
Steve Fink wrote:
... For PerlHash, P0["foo";3] seems to be interpreted as an
iterator access? I hope there's some other way of indicating that.
Yep, KEY_integer_FLAG used to indicate, get me the next key and is used
by the iterator. But as your test shows its ambiguous.
We are already allowing
At 10:10 AM -0700 8/17/04, Steve Fink wrote:
Still, I won't commit this patch directly, because I have only
recently delved into the latest incarnation of the keyed code, and it
scares me.
Well, I will. :) It's in, with the test.
--
Dan
--
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:10:14AM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> I don't know what's eating my mail, but evidently the attachment never
> made it out. I tracked down this particular problem and fixed it for
perl.org's list server software eats attachments named /\.t$/
It appears sufficiently ingraine
Oh, and while I have my fingers crossed, I may as well throw in the
original test patch as well. I'll let these messages go to hell
together.
Urk! Except I used stupid filenames, and swapped the attachments. So
this attachment is actually the patch. Need more sleep.
? src/py_func.str
Index: src/ke
I don't know what's eating my mail, but evidently the attachment never
made it out. I tracked down this particular problem and fixed it for
the actual case I was using, which was not a PerlHash at all but
rather my own custom Match PMC for use in regexes. The attached patch
resolves the exact sympt
