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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
> 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
... 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
