Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:27:29PM -0500, Casey West wrote:
>> So you're suggesting that we fake lexical scoping? That sounds more
>> icky than sticking to true lexical scoping. A block dictates scope,
>> not before and not after. I don't see ick
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question whether ??::
> can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
>
> $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 }
Only if you can also do:
if $x { $x } else { $y } = 'foo';
But that looks really scary.
-
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:02:06PM -0500, Tzadik Vanderhoof wrote:
>> Why all the fuss? Often, you would *want* to access that lexical after the
>> loop terminates, for instance to check how it terminated.
>
> In most cases you don't want that to h
On Mon 21 Jan 2002 19:25, Simon Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>
> > perl vtable_h.pl
> > make: *** No rule to make target `include/parrot/rxstacks.h', needed by
>`test_main.o'. Stop.
>
> This exists (and has done for a couple of days) but
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:14:10AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> NaN is merely the floating-point representation of undef when your
> variable is stored in a bare num. And if you declare a variable as
> int, there may well be no representation for undef at all! Similarly,
> it may be impossible to
This quiets a few more gcc warnings. (I've already applied it.)
diff -r -u parrot-cvs/classes/pmc2c.pl parrot-andy/classes/pmc2c.pl
--- parrot-cvs/classes/pmc2c.pl Mon Jan 21 20:04:53 2002
+++ parrot-andy/classes/pmc2c.plTue Jan 22 11:43:10 2002
@@ -249,6 +249,9 @@
unless (exists $fla
This patch quiets another gcc warning about shadowing variables. I've
already applied it.
diff -r -u parrot-cvs/runops_cores.c parrot-andy/runops_cores.c
--- parrot-cvs/runops_cores.c Mon Jan 14 15:03:52 2002
+++ parrot-andy/runops_cores.c Tue Jan 22 11:43:10 2002
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
INTV
Hello,
some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
am wondering what is the reason for this.
Was the patch too long, or too outdated (I can resend a newer version
of the patch agains current anoncvs).
Or is the
At 06:04 PM 1/22/2002 +0100, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
>Hello,
>
>some time ago (before I went to holidays) I posted a patch
>implementing Schemepairs, but I didn't get any comments about this. I
>am wondering what is the reason for this.
Hi, I think this happens to everyone at some time on these l
Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question
> whether ??:: can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
> >
> > $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 };
I like that idea.
> Only if you can also
Tony Olekshy writes:
: In Apocalypse 4, Larry Wall wrote:
: |
: | In fact, a C of the form:
: |
: | CATCH {
: | when xxx { ... } # 1st case
: | when yyy { ... } # 2nd case
: | ... # other cases, maybe a default
: |
David Whipp writes:
: Piers Cawley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
: > Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > > I suppose this discussion also raises the vexed question
: > whether ??:: can also be put out to pasture in favour of:
: > >
: > > $val = if $x { 1 } else { 2 };
:
: I like
*nudge*
I know Dan's obviously got more important things to worry about and
Simon's also busy elsewhere, but did anyone else have any thoughts?
I include my query of last week below.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:36:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL
13 matches
Mail list logo
