TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) thomas-at-sandlass.de |Perl 6| wrote:
a() proceed: orelse b();
CATCH
{
... # make $! into return value
goto proceed;
}
This kind of needs to know the variable the return value of a()
is stored into. This is easy if orelse is checking $! anyway.
But do
"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" schreef:
> Larry Wall:
>> Another potential issue is that CATCH doesn't distinguish exceptions
>> coming from the current block from those coming from the subcall to
>> a(). So it could end up returning Failure from the current block when
>> you intended to force return of F
HaloO,
On Thursday, 4. September 2008 03:39:20 Larry Wall wrote:
> Another potential issue is that CATCH doesn't distinguish exceptions
> coming from the current block from those coming from the subcall to a().
> So it could end up returning Failure from the current block when
> you intended to fo
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:41:10PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
>> a() orelse b()
>>
>> you might want to:
>> succeed on a()
>> trap mild failure of a() and try to succeed on b() instead
>> fail completely on drastic failure of a()
>>
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
a() orelse b()
you might want to:
succeed on a()
trap mild failure of a() and try to succeed on b() instead
fail completely on drastic failure of a()
At the moment this three-way distinction depends on whether a() returns
defined/unde
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 07:56:33PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I think you're thinking of the "erm" operator...
:
: But back to "orelse" - is the only difference between "and"/"or" and
: "andthen"/"orelse" the fact that the result of the lhs gets passed as
: a parameter into the rhs? 'Cause I do
I think you're thinking of the "erm" operator...
But back to "orelse" - is the only difference between "and"/"or" and
"andthen"/"orelse" the fact that the result of the lhs gets passed as
a parameter into the rhs? 'Cause I don't see the difference between
"short circuit" and "proceed on success/f
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:28:36PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
>> Has the "err" operator, as a low-precidence version of //, been removed?
>
> Yes.
>
It could be recycled as a "fuzzy Boolean", returning a fractional value
between +1 and -1, indicating the confidence with which the result is
off
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:28:36PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> Has the "err" operator, as a low-precidence version of //, been removed?
Yes.
> It's not mentioned in S03, and the semantics of "orelse" is different.
> Is "orelse" supposed to be a direct replacement, meaning if you ignore
>
Has the "err" operator, as a low-precidence version of //, been removed? It's
not mentioned in S03, and the semantics of "orelse" is different. Is "orelse"
supposed to be a direct replacement, meaning if you ignore the parameter thing
then it doesn't change anything?
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
This appears to be nothing more than someone forgetting to update
MANIFEST. The file was checked in at least a few revs ago, it was then
deleted.
Geck, that was me last night. Sorry all. (For those wondering where
fingerprint_c.pl is going, I'm working on implementing
On Tue Jul 24 05:11:52 2007, ptc wrote:
> On 24/07/07, via RT James Keenan at
parrotcode.org> wrote:
> > # New Ticket Created by James Keenan
> > # Please include the string: [perl #44121]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> > # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticke
t Configure.pl line 395
What happened to it?
I believe this is an automatically generated file as part of Andy's
gcc sniffing stuff (it keeps coming up as a file of zero length on my
system). It probably should be in MANIFEST.SKIP or something...
Paul
ild/fingerprint_c.pl
Ack, some files were missing! I can't continue running
without everything here. Please try to find the above
files and then try running Configure again.
step init::manifest failed: no result returned at Configure.pl line 395
What happened to it?
kid51
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:55 AM -0700 5/24/04, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
The FAQ at http://www.parrotcode.org
That's a good question, and one worth poking around at. Volunteers?
(Those things are autogenerated from files in the repository, so it's
likely something broke there)
Yes, it's a wrong url
At 11:55 AM -0700 5/24/04, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
The FAQ at http://www.parrotcode.org
That's a good question, and one worth poking around at. Volunteers?
(Those things are autogenerated from files in the repository, so it's
likely something broke there)
Also - is there any reason why some messag
The FAQ at http://www.parrotcode.org
Also - is there any reason why some messages I send to
the list don't make it? I am not sure who does
maintenance on the list but the message I sent today
in regards to JIT on Cygwin did not make it.
Hopefully this one gets through
Cheers
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.
17 matches
Mail list logo
