Re: fast question

2004-07-08 Thread Michele Dondi
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote: > > Are there others, aside from these: ? > > > > prefix: a unary prefix operator > > infix: a binary infix operator > > postfix:a binary suffix operator > > circumfix: a bracketing operator > > Tons. From A12: [snip] On the

Re: Test::Inline should not capture STDOUT, STDERR

2004-07-08 Thread Tim Bunce
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:12:20PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > > Add no_plan while you're writing tests, run the tests, then when you're > done, change the plan to reflect the number of tests to run. I have a > brain-dead simple vim mapping to do just that. Aside: Would be good if someone maintain

Re: This week's summary

2004-07-08 Thread Piers Cawley
"Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Different OO models >> Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects >> inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6. > > Urgle. I've complet

Re: fast question

2004-07-08 Thread Luke Palmer
Michele Dondi writes: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote: > > > > Are there others, aside from these: ? > > > > > > prefix: a unary prefix operator > > > infix: a binary infix operator > > > postfix:a binary suffix operator > > > circumfix: a bracketing operato

scalar subscripting

2004-07-08 Thread Gautam Gopalakrishnan
Hello, I've tried the archives and the 'Perl 6 essentials' book and I can't find anything about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using substr or unpack. Hope I've not missed anything o

Re: scalar subscripting

2004-07-08 Thread Juerd
Gautam Gopalakrishnan skribis 2004-07-08 21:12 (+1000): > about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting > anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using $a[0] is $a.[0]. That means that if there is a @$a, it still is array subscript

Re: scalar subscripting

2004-07-08 Thread Luke Palmer
Gautam Gopalakrishnan writes: > Hello, > > I've tried the archives and the 'Perl 6 essentials' book and I can't > find anything > about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting > anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using > subst

Re: This week's summary

2004-07-08 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Piers Cawley wrote: > "Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Different OO models > >> Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects > >> inheriting behaviour from objects r

Re: The .bytes/.codepoints/.graphemes methods

2004-07-08 Thread Austin Hastings
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > : Or was that to imply that a literal "a" in the RE would be > : interpretted as a "grapheme a" when :u2 is active? > > I don't know what you mean by "grapheme a" there. If you me

Re: More perl5.005 problems

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 05:26:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 4:39 PM -0400 6/14/04, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:00:42PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > >> For some reason I haven't been able to figure out, perl5.00503 can't seem > >> to handle the TODO test in t/pmc/

Re: More perl5.005 problems

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:49:35PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > In fact, I'm surprised he managed to install an acceptably recent > version of Test::Simple on 5.5.3 without upgrading Test::Harness; the > bundle's required Test::Harness 2.03 for a couple of years now. Parrot ships with Test::Simple/Mo

Re: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:52:42PM -0400, darren chamberlain wrote: > * Gabor Szabo [2004/06/18 23:34]: > > I am trying to add a bunch of tests in t/ using Test::More but in > > order to make sure we don't lose any previous test we would like to > > keep the test.pl file as it is. > > Is porting

RE: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Barbie
On 08 July 2004 16:55 Michael G Schwern wrote: > Little known fact: The output of test.pl is completely ignored by > "make test". ... and really annoys cpan-testers who have to cut-n-paste all the reports that have NOT passed into FAIL reports. Though now I've fixed part of CPANPLUS it's not

bad free()s in string.t

2004-07-08 Thread Nicholas Clark
If I build parrot with --gc=libc on OS X I see some warnings about bad pointers being passed to free(). It's happening in a call from dod.c: #ifdef GC_IS_MALLOC /* free allocated space at (int*)bufstart - 1, * but not if it is used COW or external

[IDEA] Drop into the debugger on failure

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
What happens now: 1) Run tests 2) Test fails 3) Look at diagnostics 4a) If its enough information, fix the bug 4b) If not, run test in the debugger 5b) Continue to the point where the test failed 6b) Gather necessary info 7b) Fix the bug I want to eliminate 4b and 5b from this process. On

Re: fast question

2004-07-08 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:49:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: : Michele Dondi writes: : > On the wild side of things, could there be the possibility of even : > defining new ones? : : That's what I meant by: : : grammatical_category:postcircumfix : : Though it wouldn't be so magical as to jus

Re: fast question

2004-07-08 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:46:25AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : With an array : match, you might find yourself redispatching individual operators in a : switch statement to provide that kind of specificity. In particular, macros with "is parsed" will want to have a place to hang their special parse

Re: Test::More::is_deeply() bug

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:29:22PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > Actually, it seems that some of the patches were applied. The problem is > that is_deeply() delegates to ->is_eq() for non deep arguments but handles > it's own string comparison once you descend into the structure. The patch > below se

Re: Test::More::is_deeply() bug

2004-07-08 Thread Fergal Daly
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:22:57PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > What version of Test::More is that? Not the one it should have been! I had patched my version in work long ago and forgot about it. Oddly, someone else posted a patch against the original for the same thing on p5p the next day,

Re: push with lazy lists

2004-07-08 Thread JOSEPH RYAN
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:50:16PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote: > > To answer the latter first, rand (with no arguments) returns a number > greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 which when used as an index > into an array gets turned into a 0. > > As to why the second pop would take forever, I

Python::Bytecode

2004-07-08 Thread Leopold Toetsch
... is on CPAN (said Dan) and is broken. I'd be glad if people could fix it and send me a running version ;) * constants are messed up * it doesn't disassemble all code objects of a .pbc - just one $ cd languages/python $ perl pie-thon.pl -dD some.py shows more (and AFAIK correct) Python disassem

Re: bad free()s in string.t

2004-07-08 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Nicholas Clark wrote: If I build parrot with --gc=libc on OS X I see some warnings about bad pointers being passed to free(). It's happening in a call from dod.c: #ifdef GC_IS_MALLOC /* free allocated space at (int*)bufstart - 1, * but not if it is used COW

Re: [IDEA] Drop into the debugger on failure

2004-07-08 Thread Fergal Daly
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:59:35PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Likely you'd control if you wanted this behavior with > HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MTest::AutoDebug > > This can be implemented, currently, by adding a post hook onto > Test::Builder->ok() with Hook::LexWrap or Sub::Uplevel. I'm c

Re: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 05:31:02PM +0100, Barbie wrote: > > [1] Test::More automatically exits abnormally on failure but > > I'm considering changing that to no longer be the default. > > Will this then mean all cpan-testing will PASS? It means test.pl's which use Test::More and fail will no long

Re: [IDEA] Drop into the debugger on failure

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:59:38PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:59:35PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > Likely you'd control if you wanted this behavior with > > HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-MTest::AutoDebug > > > > This can be implemented, currently, by adding a post hook

Re: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Barbie
From: "Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It means test.pl's which use Test::More and fail will no longer cause > 'make test' to fail. But I doubt people are using test.pl and Test::More > much. I'm now trying to remember which distributions I tested recently with only test.pl, and can't.

Re: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Andy Lester
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:20:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > [2] Want some fun? http://search.cpan.org/~dconway > > > > You have a sick sense of humour young man ;) > > He uses test.pl. Sic 'em. That sort of cleanup is exactly what Phalanx is about. I think Par

Re: how to run test.pl before the t/*.t tests ?

2004-07-08 Thread Barbie
From: "Andy Lester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:20:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > [2] Want some fun? http://search.cpan.org/~dconway > > > > > > You have a sick sense of humour young man ;) > > > > He uses test.pl. Sic 'em. > > That sort of

Re: [IDEA] Drop into the debugger on failure

2004-07-08 Thread Fergal Daly
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:37:06PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > With inheritence, only one variant can be used at a time. > > With event subscribers, lots of variants can be used at a time. > > Consider what happens when you want to use Test::AutoDebug and a hypothetical > module which color

Re: scalar subscripting

2004-07-08 Thread Hans Ginzel
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote: > about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting > anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using Are there plans in Perl 6 for string modifiers? As they are i

Re: [IDEA] Drop into the debugger on failure

2004-07-08 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:53:52PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > The main point was that the OO way works right now, So does event hooks. Hooks are things you can hang stuff off of, but they're also used to snare things that might not want to be snared. In other words... use Test::Builder

Re: scalar subscripting

2004-07-08 Thread Luke Palmer
Hans Ginzel writes: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote: > > about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting > > anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using > >Are there plans in Perl 6 for s