Re: passing arguments to tests

2003-09-14 Thread Tels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Moin, On Sunday 14 September 2003 07:37, Andrew Savige wrote: > Ovid wrote: [snip] > functionality seems to be superseded by Apache::TestHarness run() method. > ObDisclaimer: I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, but this bit caught my attention: >

Re: [RFT] File Spec

2003-09-14 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:55:48PM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > > To be clearer: concat_dirnames("b", "/foo") == error. > > As long as concat_dirnames() will be taught to divine whether its arguments > are absolute paths or relative paths, it could easily rotate its arguments > so the above-m

Re: [RFT] File Spec

2003-09-14 Thread Gordon Henriksen
On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 12:50 , Michael G Schwern wrote: On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:55:48PM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: To be clearer: concat_dirnames("b", "/foo") == error. As long as concat_dirnames() will be taught to divine whether its arguments are absolute paths or relative p

Re: Next Apocalypse

2003-09-14 Thread Gordon Henriksen
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote: Also, the "standard library", however large or small that will be, will definitely be mutable at runtime. There'll be none of that Java "you can't subclass String, because we think you

Pondering argument passing

2003-09-14 Thread Steve Fink
I'm not sure how to use the current pdd03's calling conventions to implement what I want right now. Let's consider Perl6: sub f ($a, $b) { ... } f(1, 2); &f(1, 2); (I'm not sure if that is correct Perl6 code -- what I mean is that I call f once with a perl-level prototype, and once without.

TREE IS FEATURE FROZEN (2003-Sep-14)

2003-09-14 Thread Steve Fink
Time to clean up! How are Windows builds doing these days? Looking at the tinderbox, it looks like we've got a Debian PPC, a FreeBSD, and an x86 Linux, but nothing "interesting". And all broken by some jerk who didn't update the MANIFEST. Oh, wait. That was me. By the way, Dan convinced me that t

Re: Pondering argument passing

2003-09-14 Thread Luke Palmer
Steve Fink writes: > But that's really just shifting the burden to the receiving end, which > will now have to filter P5..P(5+L1-1), P3[0..] into the appropriate > local variables. So what would be even easier, and probably just as > fast, would be to say that unprototyped functions pass *all* of t