On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
Jonathan
leo
On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:28, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:33:07AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
OK, call frame as PMC looks like a non-starter. Consider it rescinded.
Autrijus mentioned on #parrot that we'd need weak pointers at some
time. Then we can reconsider callfra
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 0:07, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > What's the fascination with overloading comment syntax?
>
> Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
That's an advantage for the week it takes to implement the feature.
For the remaining age of the universe,
Err, I didn'
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:59:51PM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> while adding some shiny new pge tests for return context, i came
> across this PIRism:
>
> ##...
> rulesub = p6rule('$:=(.)')
> match = rulesub('abc')
> .local string res
> res = match['A']
> print res
> ##
Chromatic wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 12:45 -0800, Ovid wrote:
Yes, I can see that. I could actually have dropped Test::Differences
"eq_or_diff" and just used the "is_deeply" function from Test::More,
but when working with large data structures, there's just no comparison
between the two. I
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ian Langworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:15]:
PS. If you feel that sarcasm and satire are not best reflected
in email, I cordially suggest that you eat a helicopter.
What wine is more appropriate with helicopters, though, white or
red?
If they're UN Stormtrooper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 14 November 2005 23:22, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Chromatic wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 12:45 -0800, Ovid wrote:
> >>Yes, I can see that. I could actually have dropped Test::Differences
> >>"eq_or_diff" and just used the "is_deeply" function fr
At 08:08 10/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Nick Glencross
# Please include the string: [perl #37651]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37651 >
This patch is required for pbc_merge on some pl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 14 November 2005 18:21, Chris Dolan wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've just published an article about public vs. private regression
> tests. I've defined private tests as t/*.t files that are for the
> author only and don't go in MANIFEST. Naturally
David Cantrell wrote:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ian Langworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:15]:
PS. If you feel that sarcasm and satire are not best reflected
in email, I cordially suggest that you eat a helicopter.
What wine is more appropriate with helicopters, though, white or
red?
If t
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>
> >Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Because a compiler can emit it right now w/o any change to Parrot.
> >
> >That's an advantage for the week it take
Tonight on #parrot:
03:15 <@mdiep> meaning that imcc doesn't know it's being feed utf8
instead of ascii
03:16 <@Coke> mdiep: B***it. it knows the encoding of the string.
*) Parrot's compilers take plain old C-strings and don't know anything
about the charset/encoding of the string - but read
"Francois PERRAD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This patch is required for pbc_merge on some platforms (HP-UX is the
>one that I see it on), particularly when creating tcllib.
Same problem on Win32, but this patch doesn't solve it with MinGW.
Yup, I know about this problem. We shouldn't be loa
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> I'd much more prefer that a compiler (amber anyone ;) just emits PIR
> with debug syntax so that folks get a feeling how it looks like...
OK, I've done this.
I have modified the Amber compiler to generate PIR code that contains
debug directives, so that we can discuss a
Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First-class blocks make continuations and coros almost neglible to
> implement from an API perspective. Almost makes me wonder how much
> trouble it would be to implement this in P5 ...
Um... tosh. Seriously. Full continuations need some fairly serious reto
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #37684]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37684 >
It would be somewhat helpful if parrot supported an option like
perl's -c that verifie
This question came out of a joking comment on IRC, but it's a serious
concern. Can chained buts be optimized, or must the compiler strictly
create intermediate metaclasses, classes and objects in the following:
my $a = $b but C but D but E but F;
The difference is between:
my $tm
On 11/15/05, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This question came out of a joking comment on IRC, but it's a serious
> concern. Can chained buts be optimized, or must the compiler strictly
> create intermediate metaclasses, classes and objects in the following:
>
> my $a = $b but C
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:19:49PM +0100, Florian Ragwitz wrote:
> After I've collected enough informations I'll start implementing the
> necessary changes. I hope it'll be done by the end of this week. I'm not
> sure how I should handle that though. I guess it might break parrot
> building for a w
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
Welcome to another fortnight's worth of summary. We'll get back to a
weekly schedule one of these fine days, you see if we don't.
This fortnight in perl6-compiler
There was a surprisingly large amount of activity on the list, but
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 16:24 +, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
> ...Roger Browne (whose name I keep wanting to use as a Clerihew)...
Thanks for the summaries, Piers! Here's a Clerihew for you:
Roger Browne
took his Parrot to town
Wearing an upside-down
Amber crown >:)
How to w
Will Coleda wrote:
Right, the hard bit here was that I needed to specify something other
than "file". Just agreeing that we need something other than just
"file/line".
I'd have thought the onus is the other way: justify the use of
"file/line" as the primitive concept.
We're going to have
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 09:22 +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> The question is, what level of deps is "crazy" for something that they
> don't actually need on their computer permanently but only need for 2
> seconds to install something of yours.
I sleep pretty well at night refusing to support peopl
On 11/14/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 06:59:51PM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> > it seems that in keyed string access to the match object, the result
> > is returned directly as a string. in keyed integer access to the match
> > object, an intermediate pmc
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
> > method, it's doesn't yet define a C<__get_string_keyed_int> method.
> > So, a statement like
> >
> >.local string res
> >.local pmc match
> >res = match[0
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:17:30AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Autrijus mentioned on #parrot that we'd need weak pointers at some
> time. Then we can reconsider callframe PMCs.
Ah, weak pointers. I remember a time without weak pointers. It was a
happy time. Birds chirped in the trees
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Perl 6 perlplexities
Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of
Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the
complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6
pa
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:30, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 11/15/05, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This question came out of a joking comment on IRC, but it's a serious
> > concern. Can chained buts be optimized, or must the compiler strictly
> > create intermediate metaclasses, classes an
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
: user the proviso that chained buts might be optimized down into a single
: cloning operation or not at the compiler's whim, but it could be a nasty
: shock if it's
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:23:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
> : user the proviso that chained buts might be optimized down into a single
> : cloning operation or
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:32:38PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
: > > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
: > > method, it's doesn't yet define a C<__get_string_keyed_int> method.
: > > So, a statement li
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:43:59PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote:
: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 11:23:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: > : All of that is fine, as far as I'm concerned, as long as we give the
: > : user the proviso that cha
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:28:30PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:32:38PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:26:05AM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> : > > Thus, while PGE::Match currently defines a C<__get_pmc_keyed_int>
> : > > method, it's doesn't yet
Tels,
I believe you have misunderstood my intentions. I was not advocating
that any algorithmic tests be non-public. The only tests that should
be private are ones that satisfy one or more of the following
restrictions:
1. require special additional software that’s difficult or
exp
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 15:23 -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> After reading some of the insightful comments posted on my blog, I've
> been convinced that the private tests should be included in the CPAN
> distribution, but disabled in some way (perhaps via a file extension
> other than .t?). That
On Nov 15, 2005, at 17:24, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
The Perl 6 Summary for the fortnight ending 2005-11-13
"string_bitwise_*"
Leo, it seems to boil down to a choice between throwing an
exception or
simply mashing everything together and marking the 'resulting bit
mess'
I have released "Amber for Parrot" version 0.3.1 (Magic cookies):
Downloads: http://xamber.org/download.html
Release history: http://xamber.org/history.html
Project home page: http://xamber.org/index.html
"Amber for Parrot" is an Eiffel-like scripting language for the Parrot
Virtual Machine.
Cha
Le mardi 15 novembre 2005 à 15:23, Chris Dolan écrivait:
>
> After reading some of the insightful comments posted on my blog, I've
> been convinced that the private tests should be included in the CPAN
> distribution, but disabled in some way (perhaps via a file extension
> other than .t?).
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat wrote:
Le mardi 15 novembre 2005 à 15:23, Chris Dolan écrivait:
After reading some of the insightful comments posted on my blog, I've
been convinced that the private tests should be included in the CPAN
distribution, but disabled in some way (perhaps via a file extensi
On Nov 15, 2005, at 3:38 PM, chromatic wrote:
I posted a small Module::Build subclass that shows one way to do
this to
Perl Monks:
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=508160
Yeah, I saw that one.
Perhaps a better approach is to store these tests in a subdirectory of
t/.
Beware that M::B h
Adam Kennedy wrote:
What about a special environment variable, like RUN_PRIVATE_TESTS?
I've been working on a concept of taggable tests on some of my larger
commercial stuff, integrating with the Test::More skip() function, and
some form of environment variables does indeed seem the best way
David Golden wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
What about a special environment variable, like RUN_PRIVATE_TESTS?
I've been working on a concept of taggable tests on some of my larger
commercial stuff, integrating with the Test::More skip() function, and
some form of environment variables does in
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:33 -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> Beware that M::B has a recursive mode for finding tests. It's set by
> the author, so you should be safe in this case, but it's a point
> worth remembering.
I haven't looked at the code again just now, but wouldn't overriding
find_test_
Here is some perplexing behavior:
say "Foo";
hello there;
sub hello () {
say "Bar";
}
sub there () {
say "Baz";
}
This prints:
Foo
*** No compatible subroutine found: "&hello"
at lazy.p6 line 2, column 1-12
I would expect it to print:
On 11/16/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is some perplexing behavior:
>
> say "Foo";
> hello there;
>
> sub hello () {
> say "Bar";
> }
>
> sub there () {
> say "Baz";
> }
>
> This prints:
>
> Foo
> *** No compatible subroutine found
46 matches
Mail list logo
