Re: [perl #40204] line numbers of runtime errors are one too low

2006-08-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Am Sonntag, 20. August 2006 02:43 schrieb Will Coleda: > > [1] http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38594 > >     and WTF - who dared to close that (coke--) > > This isn't the same error, it's a different one. Do you intend to have a new ticket for each PIR snippet with wrong line nu

Perl 6 mailing list summary for the weeks of August 1-19, 2006

2006-08-20 Thread Ann Barcomb
Perl 6 mailing list summary for the weeks of August 1-19, 2006 Summary updates This is the final installment of the older summaries. After this week, I plan to post weekly summaries on Sundays. Parrot Porters [perl #39750] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tru64 core dump: t/examples/japh_12.pas

Re: [perl #40204] line numbers of runtime errors are one too low

2006-08-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:12:12AM -0700, Leopold Toetsch via RT wrote: > Am Sonntag, 20. August 2006 02:43 schrieb Will Coleda: > > > [1] http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38594 > > >     and WTF - who dared to close that (coke--) > > > > This isn't the same error, it's a different

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote: > On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >You don't actually need a macro in that case: > > > >if 0 { q< > >... > >> } > > Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a > code-commenting constru

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Mark J. Reed
On 8/20/06, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of questions. Is code inside of a #{}: - parsed and required to be syntacticly correct? No. It's a comment. # followed by one or more open bracket characters creates a

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > #{ > >if $baz { > >$foo.bar > >} > > } > > > > To uncomment, remove the # before the {. > > This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of > questions. Is code inside of a #{}: > > - p

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: : On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote: : > On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > >You don't actually need a macro in that case: : > > : > >if 0 { q< : > >... : > >> } : > : > Wh

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Luke Palmer
On 8/20/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > #{ > >if $baz { > >$foo.bar > >} > > } > > > > To uncomment, remove the # before the {. > > This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A coupl

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Luke Palmer
On 8/20/06, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I think you are being too picky. [snip snarky sarcastic rant] Hmm, perhaps I'm feeling edgy. Or maybe some of the comments reminded me of those rediculously long, whiny threads. Anyway, that was un-called-for. Luke

Re: multi-line comments, C macros, & Pod abuse

2006-08-20 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > >The important question here is this one: > > > > - when 'uncommented', is it a no-op? > > > >Which isn't true for #{}/{}, because {} introduces new lexical > >scope. > Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You wou

Re: [REPATCH] Parrot::Embed Take Two

2006-08-20 Thread François PERRAD
At 18:43 17/08/2006 -0700, chromatic wrote: Hi there, Here's a patch for Build.PL that should avoid most of the pkg_config troubles on platforms that don't have it. I still don't quite know what to do on Windows when installing from outside of the Parrot tree. 1) in get_parrot_path_external()