Beau E. Cox wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Congrats on your 6.2.11 release!
>
> Did the development (svn) version really jump to 6.28.0?
Yes. Major pugs releases are numbered by adding the next digit of 2*pi,
rather than the more conventional x.y+1 :-)
> I am running some scripts to automate a refresh of p
David Cantrell wrote:
brian d foy wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hopefully it will be something like:
$I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1;
;-)
Seriously though, I would expect things in Win32::* to only work on
Windows, things in Linux::* only to work on linux, and so on for many
Tyler MacDonald writes:
> Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [lots of author test examples, including:]
>
> > * versionsync.t - Checks that the $VERSION is the same in all bin/*
> > and *.pm files. This test is pointless after release, since it's
> > already been tested before relea
Moin,
On Friday 03 February 2006 11:04, David Landgren wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
> > brian d foy wrote:
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Hopefully it will be something like:
> >>> $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1;
> >>> ;-)
[snip]
> >
> > I want my code to be more like File
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:30:13AM +0100, Tels wrote:
> Problaby just because the last guy running RISC OS has died 4 years ago.
> SCNR :-)
Well, the list is *slightly* more active than that:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.riscos
Nicholas Clark
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:01:42 +0100
Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating
>limited continuations that are able to return some
On 03/02/06, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> pugs -V:
>
> LW> This is Perl6 User's Golfing System, version 6.2.11, February 1,
> LW> 2005 (r8945) built for i386-linux-thread-multi
>
>
> not that this has anything
Bob Rogers wrote:
Worse, the closed-over frame is leaked entirely. (Is this what the
"obviously leaks memory" comment in src/register.c is talking about, or
are there other cases of leakage?) But I think I have a handle on
what's causing this, and hope to propose a fix shortly.
Yep re com
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:01:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Bob Rogers wrote:
> > From: "Leopold Toetsch via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yep. At least as long we don't have better support for creating
> > limited continuations that are able to return some results.
> >
> >I'm afraid
On Feb 3, 2006, at 15:49, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:01:42PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Limiting the callframe range, where the continuation can go. Currently
creating a continuation is rather expensive, as all RetContinuations
up
the call chain are converted into f
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:18:14PM -1000, Beau E. Cox wrote:
: Hi -
:
: When making pugs, I know that the following env must be
: setup to imbed parrot:
:
: ...
: export PUGS_EMBED="perl5 parrot"
: export PARROT_PATH="/the/parrot/built/source/tree"
: ...
:
: Is the parrot source tree only needed
On Friday 03 February 2006 07:03 am, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:18:14PM -1000, Beau E. Cox wrote:
> : Hi -
> :
> : When making pugs, I know that the following env must be
> : setup to imbed parrot:
> :
> : ...
> : export PUGS_EMBED="perl5 parrot"
> : export PARROT_PATH="/the/par
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:45:23AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 2/3/06, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >sub factorial(Int $x) {
: >temp state Int $result = 1;
: >$result *= $x;
: >factorial $x-1 if $x > 2;
: >return $result if want;
: >}
: >say
Larry Wall wrote:
But that's just my current mental model, which history has shown
is subject to random tweakage. And maybe "env $+result" could be a
special squinting construct that does create-unless-already-created.
Doesn't feel terribly clean to me though. If we stick with the +
twigil alw
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:39:55PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 16:26, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> >This'll likely be out-of-date tomorrow, but I found it useful as a
> >quick snapshot/overview of the Parrot repository.
The process used to created it isn't amenable to automa
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:41:47PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >But that's just my current mental model, which history has shown
: >is subject to random tweakage. And maybe "env $+result" could be a
: >special squinting construct that does create-unless-already-created.
: >Do
On Feb 2, 2006, at 15:10, Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
...as of r11409, I'm not seeing the 'make test' error for punie
(on my Linux/x86_64 box).
I don't know if this is because it's now working, or because you've
routed around the particular problem you were seeing, so let
me know if you're
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-01T03:26:55]
> And I think you've conveniently sidestepped my main point which is
> that TODO tests passing are errors. Consider you have two TODO tests,
> both of which depend on a common set of functionality. Both should
> pass or both should fail.
I just
I've tested on FreeBSD 6.0 and OS X 10.3.9, and t/problematic.t is
successful for both, both with r11418.
But, I've encountered two major problems. On darwin, I can't finish
past_node.t, first parrot takes over 100 megs of ram, then perl(5.8.7)
wants 180 megs. On freebsd, it's actually worse
19 matches
Mail list logo
