Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as find_method itself can be overridden, this above is merely a
> description of the default behavior, not a hard requirement.
Yes, of course. C *is* overridable and, as all method lookup
is calling C, the code can do whatever is needed. I'm
describin
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary problem is
determining if the user has a working build chain. I think Module::Build
has code to do this and
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
>
> Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> compile time, but often not. Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> what context it was called i
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
> >
> > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> > compile time, but often not
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:17:50PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: > >
: > > Lazily, for the most part.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: >
: > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
: > compile time, but often not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:42 PM, chromatic wrote:
>
>> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
>> a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
>> appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> we should be able to communicate TAP via HTTP, SMTP, etc.).
TAP::Lite anyone?
/me ducks
;)
--Geoff
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> : > what context it was called in until it's actually called, unless we
> :
Is is possible to check to see whether an attribute exists on a given
object, or at least catch an exception if it doesn't? I've tried to set
up an exception handler, but Parrot exits without anything being caught.
A code snippet follows:
.sub _main
.local pmc class
.local int type
.local
On Feb 23, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
For any brave Phalanx folks who wish to target MakeMaker I can point
you at
some critically deficient areas of its testing.
1) XS. There is absolutely no testing of XS code. The primary
problem is
determining if the user has a working buil
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:01:43PM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
> See attached diff.
Thanks, applied with some tweaks.
/Autrijus/
pgpJVsnhQUl7g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #34258]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=34258 >
Hi,
in the near, or far, future there will be test scripts and compiler input
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:48:59AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Agreed. IMO the TAP protocol should confine itself to a single
> (arbitrary) data stream. It shouldn't even specify STDOUT;
> leaving that as an implementation detail makes the protocol more
> useful (ie., we should be able to commu
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 06:42:57PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> The TAP documentation in 2.47_01 says:
>
> A harness must only read TAP output from standard output and not from
> standard error.
>
> The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> a reason for this bey
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:05:13PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
> >The way Test::Builder works, diagnostics always go to STDERR. Is there
> >a reason for this beyond "It's tricky to correlate diagnostics to the
> >appropriate test numbers"? (I agree with that, but I'm willing to take
> >my chances
On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to
capture
STDERR?
No, all my patch did was turn off buffering in the same way that
Test::Builder does.
Regards,
David
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:19 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Is this associated with the recent versions of TH that attempt to capture
> STDERR?
I redid that patch, removing that dubious feature, and I think Andy
applied the second version. T::H::S now interprets any diagnostics and
associates
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Most people use scoping functions as the top most function of the
corresponding statement AST s
Hi, folks
I've initiate a Perl6 document localization project called "p6l10n".
It's hosted in www.openfoundry.org (same as PUGS), and it's svn
repository
is in http://svn.openfoundry.org/p6l10n
We just start to translate the Perl6 synopsis to zh_tw.
If you are interesting in it, please tell me yo
StÃphane Payrard writes:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Hmm, but that kills the Perl 5 ability to do conci
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Too bad t
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't profess to have thought deeply about type inferencing.
> But I do know that I don't want to turn Perl 6 into ML just yet...
>
> Larry
>
Speaking of ML, it appears to me that Perl6 rules are a mechanism that
can act
This should actually be titled "Where are all the compilers?"
-
I haven't ranted in a couple of years, so I'm due. Ranting is
nothing more than broadcasting my emotions from a soapbox
but it is so fun, I love to do it.
Let me respectfully give my opinion. In no way am I criticizing your
suggest
> "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>>
>> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
>> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
>> with initializer so one could w
Luke Palmer wrote:
We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
parentheses in the standard swap:
$x, $y = $y, $x;
$x, $y <== $y, $x;
-- Rod Adams
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:09:24PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >>
> >> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> >> would allow to drop pare
Rod Adams writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
> >parentheses in the standard swap:
> >
> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
> >
> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
Heh, oh yeah. I guess I wasn't so off suggesting <-, then.
Well, there's half the problem.
> "LP" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LP> Rod Adams writes:
>> Luke Palmer wrote:
>>
>> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
>> >parentheses in the standard swap:
>> >
>> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
>> >
>> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
LP> He
Luke Palmer wrote:
Now we just need to determine if 'my' can leave its post as a unary declarator.
Don't see why not... If you ever need it unary, you can just put the ()
back in.
The question becomes which is more common:
Scoping a single variable in a list context, or scoping several
variab
This patch adds support for:
qq{} qq[] qq<> qq() qq}{ qq][ qq>< qq)(
As well as qq// for any nonalphanumeric /.
I know that qq() isn't actually supported in Perl 6, but we don't have
options on quoters yet, so it's in.
Luke
Index: t/02atoms.t
Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
And y'all wonder why we hate you damn yankees. Can't even speak properly
up there.
:-)
We should instead have a list attribu
Luke Palmer writes:
> This patch adds support for:
>
> qq{} qq[] qq<> qq() qq}{ qq][ qq>< qq)(
>
> As well as qq// for any nonalphanumeric /.
>
> I know that qq() isn't actually supported in Perl 6, but we don't have
> options on quoters yet, so it's in.
>
> Luke
Thanks, committed. :-)
L
> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
>> unary my problem. :)
>>
>>
RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
RA> And y'all wonder why we hate you dam
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
> >> unary my problem. :)
> >>
> RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before t
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to make a new low precedence assignment.
> Let's say we made it <-. Does that imply that there is also
> low-precedence binding :<- and compile-time binding ::<- ? Those don't
> look right. I think we're weighing making good ol' assignment low
> "PRM" == Patrick R Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRM> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
37 matches
Mail list logo
