On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 22:27:29 +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Earlier today chromatic kindly gave me a gentle tap with the cluestick which
> let me figure out how to give T::H::S STDERR & STDOUT, which means my mates
> test results are now
> toddling off to a SQLite database quite happily.
Suppose we have a function that takes an argument and returns something
with the same type as that argument. One previous suggestion is this:
sub identity ((::a) $x) returns ::a { return(...) }
This is fine if both invariants in the "the meaning of 'returns'" thread
are observed, since the i
On 30 Jul 2005, at 00:00, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
Perhaps you misunderstand.
I did
I mean to put that BEGIN { *STDERR = *STDOUT }
in the test script. foo.t never prints to STDERR.
Doh. I would have to put in in a module so I could shim it in with
HARNESS_PERL_SWITCHES but yes,
On Jul 29, 2005, at 18:58, Amir Karger wrote:
So I think to avoid these problems I need to declare image at the top
of every Z-code sub. My question is, is there any cost associated with
always declaring this array holding 50-500K ints, other than having one
P register always full?
No not at
On 30 Jul 2005, at 01:05, Andy Lester wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 03:57:07PM -0700, Michael G Schwern
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
This is, IMHO, the wrong place to do it. The test should not be
responsible
for decorating results, Test::Harness should be. It means you can
decorate
ANY te
What do &print and &say return?
"fail" would be great on errors. On success, they return "1" now, which
doesn't look very useful. How about returning the printed string? Unless
called in void context, of course.
(This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
return value o
Hi,
http://use.perl.org/~autrijus/journal/25337:
> deref is now 0-level; $x = 3; $y = \$x; $y++. # now an exception
my $arrayref = [1,2,3];
say $arrayref.ref;# Ref or Array?
say $arrayref.isa("Ref"); # true or false?
say $arrayref.isa("Array"); # false or true?
Hi,
my @array = ;
my $arrayref := @array;
push $arrayref, "c";
say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # a b c d, no problem
$arrayref = [];
say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # d e f, still no problem
$arrayref = 42;# !!! 42 is not a Ref of Array
Sho
Hi,
is binding hashes to arrays (or arrays to hashes) legal? If not, please
ignore the following questions :)
my @array = ;
my %hash := @array;
say %hash; # b
push @array, ;
say %hash; # f?
%hash = "Y";
say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # ???
# (o
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 02:14:52PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: http://use.perl.org/~autrijus/journal/25337:
: > deref is now 0-level; $x = 3; $y = \$x; $y++. # now an exception
:
: my $arrayref = [1,2,3];
:
: say $arrayref.ref;# Ref or Array?
Array.
: say
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: my @array = ;
: my $arrayref := @array;
:
: push $arrayref, "c";
: say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # a b c d, no problem
:
: $arrayref = [];
: say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # d e
Except that you've rebound the container. Hmm, maybe the original
binding is an error.
Larry
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 02:59:02PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: is binding hashes to arrays (or arrays to hashes) legal? If not, please
: ignore the following questions :)
:
: my @array = ;
: my %hash := @array;
:
: say %hash; # b
: push @array, ;
: say
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> : my @array = ;
> : my $arrayref := @array;
[...]
> : $arrayref = 42;# !!! 42 is not a Ref of Array
> :
> : Should the last line be treated as
> : $arrayref = (42,);
> : wh
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
> Except that you've rebound the container. Hmm, maybe the original
> binding is an error.
what about:
sub foo (Array $arrayref) {...}
my @array = ;
foo @array;
The binding used by the parameter binding code does not use the
standard := operator then, right?
On 7/30/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 02:14:52PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> : say $arrayref.isa("Ref"); # true or false?
>
> False, though tied($arrayref).isa("Ref") is probably true.
In that case, how do you check if something is a ref? `if (
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 14:56 +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
> (This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
> return value of a printed "0" or "" while not using "fatal", but the
> code can use a defined guard.)
I don't know if returning the printed string is the right approach,
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:25:12AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 14:56 +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
:
: > (This introduces a potential semipredicate problem when looking at the
: > return value of a printed "0" or "" while not using "fatal", but the
: > code can use a defined guard.)
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 05:17:29PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > Except that you've rebound the container. Hmm, maybe the original
: > binding is an error.
:
: what about:
:
: sub foo (Array $arrayref) {...}
:
: my @array = ;
: foo @array;
:
: The
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 11:50 +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> I took chromatic to mean that he'd like the test harness to do the
> decorating...
Yep -- that way you don't have to munge whatever formatting
Test::Harness::Straps does, you just decorate on a method that does the
formatting for you.
>
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:36:13AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't see any reason to return the string at all. It's almost never
> wanted, and you can always use .= or monkey but.
So: fail on failure bool::true on success? Pugs currently returns
bool::true.
Is there a way to tag a sub as fail
What gets called for me when someone "use"s my module? What gets called
when someone "no"s it?
L stipulates a standard syntax for import lists, and
that's probably a good thing, but then how do you pass other compile-time
requests to code that's being used?
Perhaps in light of L, we can make "use
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:40:11AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Right, so I guess what really happens is ref autogeneration in that
> case, and there's no difference between
>
> $x = @array;
> $x := @array;
>
> Hey, who said anything about consistency? :-)
Hm, not exactly. This form:
I have just checked in the container type part of the new PIL runcore:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/src/PIL.hs
In the Pugs directory, you can run a sample test with:
*PIL> tests
==> %ENV =:= %ENV;
True
==> %ENV =:= %foo;
False
==> untie(%ENV); my %foo := %ENV;
Autrijus Tang wrote:
Containers come in two flavours: Non-tieable and Tieable. Both are typed,
mutable references. There is no way in runtime to change the flavour.
data Container s a
= NCon (STRef s (NBox a))
| TCon (STRef s (TBox a))
A Non-tieable container is comprised of
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:00:13PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Tieing a hash would be the same as sub-classing it
Sub-classing a container is exactly what tying is all about.
That, and not losing the original non-tied storage inbetween ties.
> Or is this merely a mechanism for the above?
You can
On 7/27/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:00:20AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> Everything that is a Num is a Complex right?
>
> Not according to Liskov. Num is behaving more like a constrained
> subtype of Complex as soon as you admit that "isa" is about both
I think I might have gotten my x86-64 code generator up in the most minimal
sense possible. I managed to build parrot in such a way that it used my own
JIT implementation. I implemented Parrot_noop along with Parrot_jit_normal_op.
My plan was to test some noop's first before opening up to all be
28 matches
Mail list logo
