I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in:
if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") {
}
:-)
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote:
> I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in:
>
> if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") {
*scratches head*
so... it negates the left side, then ANDs it with the right?
also, it seems to be rather vague to me.
in order to sound clear
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:50:13 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in:
> > if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") {
> *scratches head*
> so... it negates the left side, then ANDs it with the right?
This silly bug has been driving me mad, so I'm posting this very simple
patch despite the fact that I should really be working instead. (Guess I
got sick of seeing all three Solaris targets on fire :-)
Index: io_unix.c
===
RCS file:
> "Sam" == Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It just
Sam> implies that the second condition is not generally what you'd expect if
Sam> the first was true.
Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make it "even_t
"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It
Sam> just implies that the second condition is not generally what
Sam> you'd expect if the first was true.
Randal> Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make
Randal>
It can't be that confusing at first glance if English dedicates a slot
way up in the huffman table to the word, eh?
print "; "
if ($need_eol but $current_column < 21);
OTOH, this might become an "and grep-not" operator for (was it
Damian?)'s quantum operators:
@y = all(@x) but { /^anti/ }
At 09:47 AM 2/21/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It
>Sam> just implies that the second condition is not generally what
>Sam> you'd expect if the first was true.
>
>Randal> Mayb
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 09:01, Sam Vilain wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:50:13 -0600
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote:
> > > I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in:
> > > if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") {
> > *scratches head*
>
David M. Lloyd:
> This silly bug has been driving me mad, so I'm posting this very simple
> patch despite the fact that I should really be working instead. (Guess I
> got sick of seeing all three Solaris targets on fire :-)
Thanks, applied. That *was* silly, yes. :)
--
"So i get the chance to
At 11:19 PM 2/20/2002 -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>At 0:39 on 02/21/2002 +0100, "Ritz Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - add a O_BINARY flag to open() in pdump.c, embed.c (required by bcc)
> > - define O_BINARY 0 when it's not defined (win32 knows it, linux not)
>
>Offhand, i'm wondering i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It just
> Sam> implies that the second condition is not generally what you'd
> Sam> expect if the first was true.
> Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make it
> "even_
At 11:13 PM -0500 2/18/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>This patch adds a new Makefile target called "check_source". This target
>scans all the .c and .h files in the directory and checks for conformance to
>a number of the standards outlined in PDD 7.
Applied, thanks.
--
At 11:44 PM -0500 2/18/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
>This patch removes cuddled elses, as required by PDD 7.
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
At 12:39 AM +0100 2/21/02, Ritz Daniel wrote:
>this patch adds support for the freely availabe borland c++ 5.5.1 compiler
>
>depends on:
>- josh's patch to remove ssize_t from CPrederef.pm
Applied, thanks. I'm not sure I got Josh's ssize_t remove patch
in--I'll go look now.
--
At 2:08 PM -0500 2/18/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>The "inline" bit of that patch was no longer needed, and the ssize_t thing
>really shouldn't be needed either.
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An off-the-wall thought... If this is not the "expected" condition,
> should it have the extra meaning of an assertion? For example,
> could set $! to 'defined $foo but $foo eq ""' and, if -w was in use,
> issue 'warn "Exceptional condition: $!"'
Intere
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote:
> I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like:
>
> if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { }
>
> to avoid my program writing garbage to STDERR.
Of course you will now be able to say:
if ($foo // "" ne "bar") { }
Right?
- D
<[EMAIL PR
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 11:28:26PM +, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> Currently the add, subtract, multiply and divide methods in perlnum.pmc
> are all coded along the lines of:
>
> void add (PMC * value, PMC* dest) {
> if(value->vtable == &Parrot_base_vtables[enum_class_PerlInt]) {
David M. Lloyd writes:
: On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote:
:
: > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like:
: >
: > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { }
: >
: > to avoid my program writing garbage to STDERR.
:
: Of course you will now be able to say:
:
: if ($foo
At 1:52 PM -0500 2/18/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>Fixes the following (lcc) warnings:
>
> - interpreter.c:470: warning: expression with no effect elided
>(related to the way warnings flags were defined)
>
> - misc.c:352: warning: unreachable code
> misc.c:483: warning: unreachable c
This is the key.c portion of Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s patch
from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Although there's more work being done on the key stuff and this isn't the
final fix, applying this patch does get parrot to build with two more
compilers, so it's probably worthwhile.
[josh-009.pat
At 8:06 PM -0500 2/21/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>Although there's more work being done on the key stuff and this isn't the
>final fix, applying this patch does get parrot to build with two more
>compilers, so it's probably worthwhile.
Applied, thanks.
--
Dan
This is a slightly confused first attempt at a pdd. I'll start to add
extra details over the next couple of days.
Is 8 the right number? And can someone who knows how fix the ones in
the repository to have more meaningful file names?
Alex Gough
#
On Thursday 21 February 2002 22:08, Alex Gough wrote:
> This is a slightly confused first attempt at a pdd. I'll start to add
> extra details over the next couple of days.
>
> Is 8 the right number? And can someone who knows how fix the ones in
> the repository to have more meaningful file names
I want to emulate a packed structure with Parrot in the way a compiler
would normally do this for a low level machine.
It just needs traditional notation for setting fields by offset into
the struct.
I sort of feel that PerlString _could_ handle this, but I'm curious
if there are any gotchas I'm
26 matches
Mail list logo
