Re: [perl #43172] [TODO] Is interactive configuration step necessary in config/inter/pmc.pm?

On Friday 26 October 2007 20:57:25 James Keenan via RT wrote: > I've come to my point in the writing of unit tests for the config step > classes that I'm about to turn to this step. If user-interactivity is > not appropriate for this step, I could reformulate it as an 'auto' step. While it may b

Re: [perl #46937] [PATCH] Parenthesis spacing patch (win32)

Applied, thanks! (r22519)

[perl #43172] [TODO] Is interactive configuration step necessary in config/inter/pmc.pm?

Patch applied to trunk in r22520. Resolving ticket.

[perl #41858] [CAGE] Make a reasonable set of rules for splint

On Sun Oct 21 13:25:50 2007, ptc wrote: > On Thu Mar 15 19:12:48 2007, ptc wrote: > > splint spews many many errors by default. Take a look at the > > Makefile that perl5 has for the start of some rules that Andy worked > > on for the perl5 code. > > Andy Lester has done a very large amount of wo

[perl #43326] [TODO] config/auto/pmc.pm: Write unit tests

Name of ticket changed to reflect change from 'inter' to 'auto' type of configuration step in r22520.

[perl #43170] [TODO] should --ask be handled like the other user defines? (config/inter/lex.pm)

On Fri Jun 08 06:44:29 2007, ptc wrote: > In the file config/inter/lex.pm there is the following todo item: > > # XXX should --ask be handled like the other user defines or checked for > # version requirements? > > A decision needs to be made as to how to handle the --ask option, and > th

[perl #43339] [TODO] config/inter/ops.pm: Write unit tests

In http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=43172, we discussed the fact that in configuration step class inter::pmc, the code for prompting the user to select among pmc's was, in effect, turned off because we weren't sure that it was advisable, at this point in time, to permit users to ma

[perl #46007] [CAGE] licensing cleanup

On Tue Oct 02 13:39:30 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Parrot is no longer licensed under the GPL directly (though it is > available under the GPL through the Artistic 2.0). Update or remove > references to the GPL license in these files: > > debian/copyright:45 Removed mention of some no-long

Re: [perl #46007] [CAGE] licensing cleanup

On Saturday 27 October 2007 08:25:57 Paul Cochrane via RT wrote: > languages/regex/lib/Regex/Grammar.pm: > (c) Copyright 1998-2001 Francois Desarmenien, all rights reserved. > > This file is automatically generated. So what do we do with files in > such cases? It is generated from Parse::Yapp, s

Re: [svn:parrot] r22522 - trunk/editor

On Saturday 27 October 2007 07:43:26 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Modified: trunk/editor/pasm.el > === >=== --- trunk/editor/pasm.el (original) > +++ trunk/editor/pasm.el Sat Oct 27 07:43:24 2007 > @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ >

[perl #43314] [TODO] config/auto/msvc.pm: Write unit tests

The patch attached significantly improves the test coverage of configuration step class auto::msvc. To make this class more testable, the guts of its runstep() method have been refactored out into two subroutines The first is a subroutine, _probe_for_msvc(), which wraps around the construction an

Re: [perl #43339] [TODO] config/inter/ops.pm: Write unit tests

On Oct 27, 2007, at 10:52 AM, James Keenan via RT wrote: In http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=43172, we discussed the fact that in configuration step class inter::pmc, the code for prompting the user to select among pmc's was, in effect, turned off because we weren't sure that

[perl #43339] [TODO] config/inter/ops.pm: Write unit tests

> > My recommedation is that we do here what we did in inter::pmc, viz., > > eliminate the prompting code and change this class from inter::ops to > > auto::ops. > > > > Any objection? > > None whatsoever, have at it. > r22530: Module refactored and renamed; corresponding test file renamed. C

Fixing GC Bugs

http://www.perlfoundation.org/parrot/index.cgi?fixing_gc_bugs Thanks to chromatic for the how-to lesson in #parrot; Turned this into a wiki page. ShareAndEnjoyTheWiki. -- Will "Coke" Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[perl #46961] t/configure/117-inter_shlibs-0[12].t Fail without libgdbm

# New Ticket Created by chromatic # Please include the string: [perl #46961] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=46961 > $ prove t/configure/117-inter_shlibs-0*.t t/configure/117-inter_shlibs-01ok 1/19Linker

[svn:parrot-pdd] r22543 - trunk/docs/pdds/draft

Author: allison Date: Sat Oct 27 21:22:00 2007 New Revision: 22543 Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod Log: [pdd] Solifidifying PDD 19 coverage on macros and .pcc_* directives. Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod ===

[perl #45925] [RFC][IMCC] pcc directives ".pcc_" prefix

On Mon Oct 01 21:21:42 2007, kjs wrote: > Is it still necessary to prefix these > directives with "pcc_" (as it is the only calling conventions)? Other > directives such as .yield and .return also use the PCC, but do > not have this prefix. This difference seems arbitrary and inconsistent > (synta

general review of PDD 19 (PIR)

I just checked in a revised version of the PIR PDD. The most notable changes are to the macro syntax and to the .pcc_* directives. At this point I've finished my review, and it's ready for a general review. Comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks to smash and KJS for putting this together!