I'm about to add a POD test program to my phalanx distro.
Before I do that, just want to check I'm using the best model.
I plan on using the one from WWW::Mechanize (shown below) --
unless someone can suggest a better model.
Is it worth trying to agree on a de facto standard name for
such a beast:
> Is it worth trying to agree on a de facto standard name for
> such a beast: 99-pod.t/99_pod.t/99.pod.t/99pod.t?
Personally, I'd just as soon not have it be one of the numeric ones. It
doesn't matter what order it's run in.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:pet
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #24289]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=24289 >
Hi,
after the promotion of 'languages/imcc' I was checking languages/Makefile.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Simon Glover wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 4:43 PM -0400 10/23/03, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >And I could certainly do with some help at this point.
> > >
> > >Parrot is *almost* put back together. There's some weird linking problem
> > >that's kee
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Melvin Smith wrote:
> I'm working on getting class syntax added to PIR.
>
> It appears IMCC's way of emitting instructions as it collects compilation
> was a mistake (mine) and isn't going to work for metadata that needs to
> be initialized first.
>
> Basically all metadata ha
At 08:36 AM 10/24/2003 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically all metadata has to be collected before any code can be emitted.
> I was thinking of generating an _init routine that creates the classes,
> so we have several possibilities.
Why? A class defin
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:20:34 -0400 (EDT), Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Clites wrote:
> > 2) I don't see it as a huge problem that serialization code could end
> > up creating additional objects if called from a destroy() method.
>
> User code may, parrot may not. The reasons are
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:39:38 -0400 (EDT), Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> > This is a question of what is allowed at destruction time. You don't
> > want to allow memory allocation, but allow freezing. That gets hard,
> > because you need at least allocate the S
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Peter Haworth wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:39:38 -0400 (EDT), Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Juergen Boemmels wrote:
> > > This is a question of what is allowed at destruction time. You don't
> > > want to allow memory allocation, but allow freezing. That gets
Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:36 AM 10/24/2003 +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>
>>Why? A class definition should AFAIK end up in the constant table as a
>>class PMC specifying the inheritance and attributes. So a .class
>>directive is from parsing POV a constant definition, like a
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:33:17 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
> [stuff he didn't mean to send]
Sorry. Looks like I hit Send instead of Cancel.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"this system is slightly less secure than putting your IP address and
root password in big letters in a 30-seco
For those not on the cvs-commit list..
Added newsub and newclosure to PIR. Hides some implementation detail and
allows IMCC to take advantage of the newsub opcode which is much more
efficient than new/set_addr combination. This makes PIR orthogonal
between new and newsub.
Example:
PIR
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:23:52PM +1000, Andrew Savige wrote:
> Is it worth trying to agree on a de facto standard name for
> such a beast: 99-pod.t/99_pod.t/99.pod.t/99pod.t?
Probably not worth the inevitable argument.
> use Test::More;
>
> use File::Spec;
> use File::Find;
> use strict;
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
