See #34994:
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=34994
(I tried to reply earlier to #34994 on RT but I guess that wasn't the right
way to do it.)
Anyway, there seems to be a long discussion about this at #34994.
I've now tried running make reallyinstall . The runtime prefix returned is
Hi,
Is the ordering of the output of this example in S05 correct?
( http://perlcabal.org/syn/S05.html#Modifiers )
$str = "abracadabra";
if $str ~~ m:exhaustive/ a (.*) a / {
say "@()";# br brac bracad bracadabr c cad cadabr d dabr br
}
I assume that there is an ordering
Will Coleda wrote:
My take: our long term goal is to eliminate the dependency we have on
perl. Let's not spend more time making it work with 5.6, but instead,
devote that time to furthering the the long term goal. I vote we just up
the (temporary!) requirement.
Agreed. I hate yielding compa
On 4/27/07, Yehoshua Sapir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
See #34994:
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=34994
(I tried to reply earlier to #34994 on RT but I guess that wasn't the
right way to do it.)
Anyway, there seems to be a long discussion about this at #34994.
I've now tried run
From PDD 15:
$P1 = $P2.new( 'myattrib' => "Foo" )
Create a new instance object from the class object. It takes an optional,
slurpy, named list of attributes and values to initialize the object.
Passing attribute names that weren't declared in the class is an error.
Is this functional yet
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Allison Randal via RT wrote:
> Will Coleda wrote:
> >
> > My take: our long term goal is to eliminate the dependency we have on
> > perl. Let's not spend more time making it work with 5.6, but instead,
> > devote that time to furthering the the long term goal. I vote we jus
On 4/27/07, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Allison Randal via RT wrote:
> Will Coleda wrote:
> >
> > My take: our long term goal is to eliminate the dependency we have on
> > perl. Let's not spend more time making it work with 5.6, but instead,
> > devote that tim
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Jerry Gay via RT wrote:
> 5.8.4 seems reasonable, given that nobody seems to care much about
> dropping 5.6 support. however, before applying this patch, we should
> consider a deprecation cycle, to warn folks that the next release
> version will require a newer version of per
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:46:01 2007
New Revision: 14385
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
Correction noted by bsb++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
# New Ticket Created by Steve Peters
# Please include the string: [perl #42768]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42768 >
Intel C++ complains very loudly using enum types in variable and parameter
declarations.
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #42769]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42769 >
it seems that 'object' is a reserved word in imcc, it's a synonym for
'pmc'. it seems undoc
Parrot moves beyond the fragile stack-based control flow common to
virtual machines today, to a continuation-based control flow. (I can
recommend a few good books and articles if you're curious.)
Could you recommend the books and articles for the curious.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:46:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +The matches are guaranteed to be returned in left-to-right order with
> +respect to the starting positions. The order within each starting
> +position is not guaranteed and may depend on the nature of both the
> +pattern and the
On Thursday 22 March 2007 07:14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> After applying the various build patches I posted earlier today, I tried
> running make test. Unforutnately, it appears to hang in
> t/examples/shootout_1.pir. It ran for about 15 hours before I finally
> killed it. Curiously, it hadn't r
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, chromatic wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 07:14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > After applying the various build patches I posted earlier today, I tried
> > running make test. Unforutnately, it appears to hang in
> > t/examples/shootout_1.pir. It ran for about 15 hours befo
On Wednesday 25 April 2007 08:31, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> So, good detective work. I think you've plugged an important leak.
> Alas, there are still (at least) two problems:
>
> 1. It's still leaking memory badly for me. It improved from test 185
> to 227, but that's a long way from completin
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 08:31, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > So, good detective work. ?I think you've plugged an important leak. ?
> > Alas, there are still (at least) two problems:
> >
> > 1. ?It's still leaking memory badly for me. ?It improved from test
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #42776]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42776 >
there are two 'isa' ops, defined in src/ops/object.ops
one takes a string param, and the o
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:22:22AM -0700, Steve Peters wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Steve Peters
> # Please include the string: [perl #42768]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42768 >
>
>
> Intel C++ co
On Thursday 22 March 2007 06:14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I had to fix lib/Parrot/Pmc2c/PMETHODS.pm in order to get parrot to
> compile. However, after fixing it, typing 'make' doesn't regenerate the
> necessary files. There are missing dependencies. The workaround is to do
> some sort of 'make
On 4/27/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 22 March 2007 06:14, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I had to fix lib/Parrot/Pmc2c/PMETHODS.pm in order to get parrot to
> compile. However, after fixing it, typing 'make' doesn't regenerate the
> necessary files. There are missing dependenc
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:57:41PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 08:46:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > +The matches are guaranteed to be returned in left-to-right order with
: > +respect to the starting positions. The order within each starting
: > +position is no
On Friday 27 April 2007 12:22, Steve Peters wrote:
> The attached additional patch fixes one problem caused by the previous
> patch and gets Intel C++ to compile and pass all of its tests on
> Linux. Only apply the attached patch after applying the first patch.
This part bothers me:
--- src/mmd
On 4/27/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Are you sure you want to guarantee left-to-right starting
: position order? If there are multiple processors available, and
: in a lazy context, it may be preferrable to not guarantee any
: order. Then, if one processor that starts at a later
On Sun Mar 18 12:21:18 2007, ptc wrote:
> I don't know if this is a BUG or what so I'm just sending it plain.
> I've just tried to build parrot with icc (not 100% sure if my build
> flags are correct either), and I'm getting this build error:
>
> icc -o miniparrot compilers/imcc/main.o \
> -Wl
The patch I submitted for this ticket has been superseded by the patch
submitted to RT 42777
(http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42777).
On 4/27/07, via RT Jerry Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
# Please include the string: [perl #42776]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42776 >
there are two 'isa' ops, defined in
On 4/27/07, Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/27/07, via RT Jerry Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Jerry Gay
> # Please include the string: [perl #42776]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket
-ccB--- - - -Y/997 ?
20060530
+sol8-sparc-ccB--- - - -Y/441 ?
20070427
sol10-sparc-cc_5.8 BY-- Y Y YY/9 ?
20060807
sol10-sparc-gcc_4.0.2BY-- Y Y Y
On Friday 27 April 2007 16:27, jerry gay wrote:
> thanks for the explanation. i believe src/pmc/default.pmc has the isa
> vtable implementation for Object, by the way.
>
> so, given this differing behavior, these ops must be better
> documented.
Alternately, the ops should reflect the eventual ph
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #42774]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42774 >
Unfortunately, Configure.pl --gc=libc doesn't compile. I don't know how
long it's be
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #42772]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42772 >
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 26. April 2007 21:44 sch
Matt Diephouse wrote:
It looks like the PMC variant is correct in this case, because Object
isn't actually a class. There's a class flag for PMCs that sets
whether or not they are a class and Object doesn't have this set.
When you call the PMC variant of isa, it calls Parrot_object_isa, and
tha
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 27 17:08:44 2007
New Revision: 14386
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
more cleanup from TheDamian++
the ugly ::Animal initializers to .bless are gone; named args only bind params
sub-blesses are now just initialized using o
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 27 17:15:33 2007
New Revision: 14387
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
minor rewording
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(original
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 05:08:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: larry
> Date: Fri Apr 27 17:08:44 2007
> New Revision: 14386
> +The final C<::> is required here, because the C syntax
> +is reserved for defining an autovivifiable protoobject along with
> +it's initialization closure (s
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 27 17:23:07 2007
New Revision: 14388
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
apostropheo from masoch++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
This problem was cleared up when lib/Parrot/Ops2pm/Utils.pm was committed to
trunk in
February.
On Tue Apr 10 18:50:18 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are two points in docs/submission.pod where the word 'test' is
> used is a way which, IMHO, is confusing.
>
It probably would have been more productive if I had correctly identified the
file I was
complaining about. The file in qu
Feedback requested on patch attached.
Index: docs/configuration.pod
===
--- docs/configuration.pod (revision 18348)
+++ docs/configuration.pod (working copy)
@@ -21,11 +21,12 @@
F uses F, F should be in a directory called
On Mon Apr 16 16:36:56 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I ran Makefile.PL on a random windows box which hasn't had its
> compiler
> installed correctly yet. Rather than emitting an error message about
> how it couldn't find my compiler, it apparently passed the test, and
> then crashed multiple ti
On Mon Apr 09 17:04:49 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I haven't yet looked at scripts in other directories such as
> tools/dev/.
>
Here's a bit of information about tools/dev/*.pl: last revision for each script
[parrot] 520 $ svn status -v tools/dev/*.pl | tr -s ' ' | sort -t ' ' +7 -12 |
On 28/04/07, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon Apr 16 16:36:56 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I ran Makefile.PL on a random windows box which hasn't had its
> compiler
> installed correctly yet. Rather than emitting an error message about
> how it couldn't find my compiler,
On Sun Mar 18 09:01:52 2007, ptc wrote:
> t/codingstd/perlcritic.t uses a non-standard argument parsing
> mechanism. This should be replaced with Getopt::Long.
To demonstrate that this replacement has been done successfully, the patch
submitter should
provide 'before' and 'after' results for r
On Fri Apr 27 19:44:35 2007, ptc wrote:
> On 28/04/07, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon Apr 16 16:36:56 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I ran Makefile.PL on a random windows box which hasn't had its
> > > compiler
> > > installed correctly yet. Rather than emitting an
And (I should have asked this earlier) in what sense was the compiler not yet
installed
correctly? Was it, e.g., a standard Win32 box with no compiler at all?
I'd installed visual studio (the free compiler suite one can get from
Microsoft) but hadn't gone through all the config options recomme
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:57:47 -0700
"James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And (I should have asked this earlier) in what sense was the compiler
> not yet installed correctly? Was it, e.g., a standard Win32 box with
> no compiler at all?
In my case, the compiler had not yet been added
47 matches
Mail list logo
