Aaron Sherman wrote:
=table C<$_> | C<$x> | Type of Match Implied | Matching Code
=row Any | CodeC<< <$> >> | scalar sub truth | match if
C<$x($_)>
That's (the above comments aside) the same thing, and as I said when
Luke suggested it, it seems fine if that's the way we'd pr
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
anyway I just dont see what could be wrong with the way parrot could be
passing the "user_data"?
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
Whats the difference between the way parrot calls
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
I now tried calling g_cclosure_new_object() and
g_signal_connect_closure() directly. Doesn't segfault anymore (at least,
Mattia Barbon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure about this patch. It splits part of Parrot_load_lib
> into a Parrot_init_lib(Interp, load_func_ptr, init_func_ptr)
So its applied finally. Thanks,
leo
chromatic (via RT) wrote:
Hi there,
This test case and patch demonstrates and fixes a problem where *Structs
sharing initializers that contain structs end up sharing a single nested
*Struct.
I'm not convinced the behavior is completely correct. It breaks one
other test
I'd rather not have the cloni
Luke Palmer wrote:
And as I look at the code for that test:
It looks bogus. Is a PerlHash supposed to accept an integer as a key?
AFAIK yes.
The test output to this one is:
4
Four is 0
Yep. See #31128
leo
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #31285]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31285 >
All~
This patch is an early step in getting a scons based build system for
parrot. C
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
The whole idea behind callbacks is, that there is a userdata argument
that get's passed through tr
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits an C opcode. But what
At 10:48 AM +0200 8/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
... For PerlHash, P0["foo";3] seems to be interpreted as an
iterator access? I hope there's some other way of indicating that.
Yep, KEY_integer_FLAG used to indicate, get me the next key and is
used by the iterator. But as your te
Hmmm...
Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main()
(if there was one)? And, if there wasn't one, wouldn't the C compiler
want to return a sub that raised an exception?
Regards,
-- Gregor
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with
At 6:41 AM -0700 8/23/04, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Hmmm...
Wouldn't a C compiler want to return a sub that invoked the main()
(if there was one)?
Nope, it shouldn't. main() would go into the symbol table and if you
wanted to invoke it you'd yank it out and do so.
And, if there wasn't one, wouldn't
At 10:35 PM +0200 8/20/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
As part of the DOD/GC rework, we need to have a clean,
well-documented API for the garbage collector. Things were clean,
though not documented, for the original DOD and things have gotten
significantly messier since.
First is
Comparison was the one thing left out of the charset API from
earlier. So here's the API entry:
INTVAL compare(STRING, STRING)
Compares the two strings. Returns 1 if the left side is
lexically greater, -1 if the right side is lexically greater, and 0
if they're the same. Currently this
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It's not so much that
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-08-23 12:53 (-0400):
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
> our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
> and I keep thinking that that's too redundant
> (...)
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> uses Some::Module::That::Def
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
>common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
>wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
> One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
> of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
> least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
> don't think I've ever reall
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ev
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #31302]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31302 >
Current CVS parrot looks to be losing track of NCI PMCs. Once a DOD
run goes they ge
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.") (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ("")
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that ma
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it ov
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
> unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
>
> uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
my Foo $obj .= new;
# OR #
require Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
import Some::Module::That::D
On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote:
>What if we add C attribute that the execution compiler would
>discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I
>believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate
>policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
> > So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> >
> > uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
>
> Well if the long name is the problem:
>
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
No, like I said: this is not golf. I'm tryi
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficul
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:53:04PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
> class that you then instantiate like this:
>
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
> our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
>
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It'
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:14:51PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> >Stephane Peiry wrote:
> >
> >> g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
>
> >gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
[...]
> call is NULL, because of the
Folks,
A word of warning -- I've disabled the JIT's auto-generation of NCI
function headers on x86 systems. This is partly in an attempt to
track down problems I'm having with NCI calls segfaulting, and partly
because I keep adding in new function definitions only to find that
they don't work w
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
> I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
> about proposing something like:
>
> sub foo (
> Foo::Bar$bar,
> Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
> +$verbose,
> +$foo
> ) des
>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
>reason
Hello,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
> class that you then instantiate like this:
[ snip ]
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
>
> uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
is $foo implicitely declared as our or my (
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
> > > So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> > >
> > > uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
> >
> > Well if the long name is the problem:
> >
> >
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits a
mh.. guess P is an actuall pointer to PMC, in that case forget that part.. :)
Stephane
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:15:03PM +0200, Stephane Peiry wrote:
[signatures question gone]
> > *If* that is solved then the next problem is of course that by calling
> > gtk_main() the GTK event loop is runnin
At 7:13 AM -0700 8/23/04, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the "regex"
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that get
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-08-23 23:12 (+0100):
> I doubt that's a problem, as C<::> as part of the ternary operator is
> only going to be found where an operator is expected, and C<::> as part
> of a module name is only going to be found where an identifier is
> expected, so it's a matter of l
Juerd writes:
> Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
> used.
>
> How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
> I hope it's an error, although so
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>>the docs in the same file as
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new("blah");
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
Dave.
There has been a lot of discussion in the other threads lately about
iterators. I was wondering if there will be an easy way to create a
bidirectional iterator? Toy example to show what I'm thinking:
for(1..10) {
next if /7/; # always skip 7
prev if 9 && !rand 3; # occasionally
Leo's been nudging me to get the behaviours of the basic types
defined, so I'm working on updating PDD 17 with them.
The unary behavior of the types is reasonably straightforward. What
I'm puzzling over right now is the binary behavior. It's the edge
cases that are troublesome, of course -- wha
Dan~
I was originally going to say do them all or do the integer
division/no overflow check option, but then something occurred to me.
We already have I registers. If someone wants speed they should be
using them anyway. If someone doesn't care about speed, but wants
those semantics, their comp
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new("blah");
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
Wow, that's pretty amazing...
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0
I'd like a blurb that I/we can post to various places about the push to
get Perl Mongers groups adopting modules as part of Phalanx.
SouthFlorida.pm is working on a couple, and Chicago.pm is going to work
on HTML::Tree at our next meeting.
If someone would be so kind as to volunteer, so I don't ha
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd
even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C<::>
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having to
use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it s
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just igno
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > $foo??split()::0;
> >
> >Ought to be fine
> >
>
> Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
> backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
>
> $foo??0::split()
>
> ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take
"Alexey Trofimenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficulties with
> recognizing C<::> as part of C<... ?? ... :: ...> and C<::> as
> "module sigil"? Does it involve some DWIM?
Among other things, the ?? will tip off the parser that it's looking
for an ex
53 matches
Mail list logo
