Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see. Does this morphing work as designed? Creating an array out of
>> an undef feels somewhat wrong.
> Yes and yes ;)
> A longer answer is: all operators currently need an existing LHS.
[snip]
Thanks for explaining things.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Juerd wrote:
Does this make sense?
my @words = gather {
for =(open '/usr/share/dict/words' err die) {
.=chomp;
next if /<-[a-z]>/;
/$re/ and take { word => $_, score => %scores{ .letters }.sum };
}
} ==> sort { . } is descendi
Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
The error of writing
/^(?:free|net|open)bsd|bsdos|interix$/
when you mean
/^(?:(?:free|net|open)bsd|bsdos|interix)$/
is rather too easy to make. This is not the first time
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-02-07 11:45 (+0100):
> With some effort I managed to understand _which_ sense it should make up
> to this:
> > } ==> sort { . } is descending, { ..length }, { . };
> I mean: everything of what is gather()ed gets 'piped' into sort() which
> sorts according to C<< { . }
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-02-07 12:10 (+):
> Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
> end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
There currently is no such thing as precedence in regexes. Changing this
would make understanding regexes a lot harder, I think
Ron Blaschke wrote:
Why not generate the .def file instead of hoping that people add the
correct symbols? Here's a patch that seems to do the trick for me
(though not running Windows, I can't really test if the defines are all
correct).
I haven't checked the details, but I think this will not w
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-02-07 12:10 (+):
> > Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
> > end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
>
> There currently is no such thing as precedence in regexes. Cha
Belated response...
On 26 Jan 2005, at 20:18, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 04:11:56PM -0500, Ian Langworth wrote:
I'm taking a software development class this semester which will
involve
writing extensive object-oriented code. My partner and I are trying to
decide whether to us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pugs> ? 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
(#t|#f)
Here's my take on it.
Compare
my $a = (0 | 6);
say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
vs
say 4 < (0 | 6) and (0 | 6) < 2;
The difference is that in the first case the junction refers to the same
object, and the result should probably be expanded on
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Solaris/SPARC, I'm still seeing failure on the tests others have
> reported problems for.
>
> Failed 3/133 test scripts, 97.74% okay. 30/2167 subtests failed, 98.62%
> okay.
> Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
>
Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
> Ron Blaschke wrote:
>> I haven't checked the details, but I think this will not work, as it
>> seems to generates a list of all symbols beginning with nci_, but
>> 'int_cb_D4' is used, too.
> nci_test.c is used only for testing. So there is no harm in renaming the
> sy
On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:39:30PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Does this make sense?
:
: my @words = gather {
: for =(open '/usr/share/dict/words' err die) {
: .=chomp;
: next if /<-[a-z]>/;
: /$re/ and take { word => $_, score => %scores{ .letters }.sum }
Just for your information: Here are the latest test results on
Windows.
Ron
Failed TestStat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t\dynclass\pybuiltin.t5 1280 65 83.33% 1-2 4-6
t\dynclass
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 01:57:09PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 10:40 -0800, Jeff Dik wrote:
>
> > So, I just commented out line 14 of jit/ppc/core.jit [patch attached],
> > recompiled, and ran "make fulltest". Only one test failed (test 5 of
> > t/dynclass/pyclass.t). I'm gue
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:03:29PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
> >Test::Unit, as mentioned by Curtis, has been abandoned.
>
> Has it? I thought that the folk on [EMAIL PROTECTED] had taken
> it on ?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PerlUnit/ shows some activity on the mailing
list. Its members-onl
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> my $a = (0 | 6);
> say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 < X < 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it violates associativity.
If one wants to violate associativity, one should presuma
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:12:40 +0800, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> > my $a = (0 | 6);
> > say 4 < $a and $a < 2;
>
> Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
>
> 4 < X < 2
>
> to be true in any circumstan
I've written some coverage tests for Ima::DBI as part of Phalanx, but I
get a warning under -W
prompt>HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-W make test
And got these warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ima-DBI-0.33]$ HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES=-W make test
PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e"
"test
It seems to me that that would just hide other problems. This function is
for comparing 2 arrays and if neither of them things passed in are actually
arrays then it's quite right to issue a warning.
Why is this test passing undef into both arguments of eq_array?
Fergal
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: This way, both associativity and junctive dimensionality holds, so
: I think it's the way to go. Please correct me if you see serious
: flaws with this approach.
Feels right to me.
Larry
20 matches
Mail list logo
