On So. 24. Feb. 2008, 17:39:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 'make fulltest' exits at the end of any core with failing tests;
> that's how I
> expect make to behave. (If it doesn't, there's something wrong.)
Actually it no longer does that, as I have changed 'make fulltest'
in preparation for the
On Fri Mar 21 11:15:51 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) Calling _dup() instead of the deprecated dup() in src/io/io.c, and
> src/io/io_unix.c
> 2) Created macro PIO_DUP_FD(x) to handle duplication and typecasting
> (may be overkill)
> 3) Used PIO_DUP_FD(x) in src/io/io.c to help alleviate warnin
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Consider the position you put me, or another sponsor, in.
I want to endorse everything Richard then went on to say.
I have already contacted Uri and expressed my dismay at his entirely
inappropriate interjection of an advertisement for our Perl College event into
t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri Mar 21 19:23:13 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > No, and it appears not be part of Bundle::Parrot on CPAN, either. We'll
> > have to rectify this.
> >
>
> Coke asked me to pose this question for general
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:30 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 21:01:41 Will Coleda via RT wrote:
>
> > On Sat Dec 01 14:22:59 2007, coke wrote:
> > > from DEPRECATED.pod
>
> > > The PMC union struct is deprecated and will be removed once all core PMCs
> > > ha
At 21:40 +0100 3/25/08, TSa wrote:
>Doug McNutt wrote:
>>Don't allow it ( = - f($x); )to become
>>
>>= f(-$x); ## wrong!
>
>Unless of course f does Linear, then you can factor out or in the
>multiplication with -1 at will. So linearity of operators and
>functions is a very interesting property f
The dénouement.
I spoke with Allison in the course of #parrotsketch yesterday and
subsequently off-line. She recommended that I upgrade to Xcode 2.5
Developer Tools
(https://connect.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/MemberSite.woa/wa/getSoftware?bundleID=19907).
The 2.5 version, among other things, i
hi,
having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
stage for Perl 6,or is it a tool for now and will it be discarded
later on.
Anyway, if NQP is to stay, the following features would come in handy,
IMHO. I u
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:21 AM, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Keenan via RT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri Mar 21 19:23:13 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > No, and it appears not be part of Bundle::Parrot on CPAN, either. We'll
>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:21 AM, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Keenan via RT
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri Mar 21 19:23:13 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #52130]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=52130 >
On feather, when running 'make test', the following tests both hang in
an svn checkout:
HaloO,
Doug McNutt wrote:
Well. . . I was going to let it pass but I had trouble sleeping this
> morning because of it.
Sorry.
f($x) = constant + $x
>
would certainly be considered a linear function
No, I was talking about the other linear ;)
with constant
derivative but for that def
hi,
i've been working on an actions file for the NQP compiler, written in
NQP. It can be found in compilers/nqp/bootstrap
to build it, go to the compilers/nqp directory, and type "make boot"
It seems to work pretty nicely, except that there's some weirdness going on.
The problem seems to be that
I think the crucial point to pick up on is something that chromatic has
pointed out very well in any number of use.perl journal postings over the
past year. That is, Perl 6's creation is dependent on how much time people
put into it, and how many people put in time. The volunteer effort to date
h
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. But let me explain how I arrive at that. To me there is no
> binary minus!
I must agree with that one. In chalkboard mathematics, - is a unary
negation operator, and its use as a binary op in "x - y" is just
shorthand f
>From the point of view of someone working through the PCT tutorial
(quite rockin', BTW!):
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:25 +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
> entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
> stage
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:43PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > I agree. But let me explain how I arrive at that. To me there is no
: > binary minus!
:
: I must agree with that one. In chalkboard mathematics, - is a unary
: ne
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 01:28:06AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: > What does Perl 6 do in that respect? Maybe semantics could be
: > borrowed from there?
:
: In which respect?
:
: TTBOMK, both eval's role as pseud
On Wed Mar 26 07:27:44 2008, coke wrote:
> On feather, when running 'make test', the following tests both hang in
> an svn checkout:
>
> t/postconfigure/03-revision.t # hangs after test 4
> t/postconfigure/04-revision.t # hangs after test 4
>
> If I hit control-C when the hang occurs, the tests p
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
That interpretation doesn't help me solve my generic parsing problems,
which is about the relationship of op1 to op2 and op3 in
op1 a() op2 b() op3 c()
and presumably the same thing for postfixes in the other order.
My idea is to have a term re-writing stage befo
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1 + a(x)²!
Seems like a mathematician would be inclined to write that one as this instead:
1 + a²(x)!
But I'm not suggesting that you try to make (a**2)(x) work for
(a(x))**2 in Perl. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:06PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> having used NQP a bit, I feel like I'm missing a few things. I'm not
> entirely sure what the fate of NQP is; will it always be a bootstrap
> stage for Perl 6,or is it a tool for now and will it be discarded
> later on.
Neither! It
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:12:18AM -0700, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> > Being able to write
> >
> > unshift @?BLOCK, $?BLOCK;
> >
> > would be useful, as it prevents the need for creating the List class
> > over and over again.
> > I feel that these ops are so basic, it would be well worth it to
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:29:05PM +0100, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> hi,
>
> i've been working on an actions file for the NQP compiler, written in
> NQP. It can be found in compilers/nqp/bootstrap
> to build it, go to the compilers/nqp directory, and type "make boot"
>
> It seems to work pretty nice
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified:
>trunk/apps/p3/cgi-pir/slides.pir
>trunk/compilers/past-pm/PAST/Node.pir
>trunk/compilers/past-pm/POST/Node.pir
... are we at or near a point that past-pm could be removed
from the repository? What language
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed Mar 26 07:27:44 2008, coke wrote:
> > On feather, when running 'make test', the following tests both hang in
> > an svn checkout:
> >
> > t/postconfigure/03-revision.t # hangs after test 4
> > t/postconfig
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 06:06:29PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> That interpretation doesn't help me solve my generic parsing problems,
>> which is about the relationship of op1 to op2 and op3 in
>>
>> op1 a() op2 b() op3 c()
>>
>> and presumably the same thing for postfix
Larry Wall wrote:
> So here's another question in the same vein. How would mathematicians
> read these (assuming Perl has a factorial postfix operator):
>
> 1 + a(x)**2!
> 1 + a(x)²!
The "1 + ..." portion is not in dispute: in both cases, everything to
the right of the addition sign get
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: OTOH, you didn't ask how mathematicians would write this; you asked
: how they'd read it. As an amateur mathematician (my formal education
: includes linear algebra and basic differential equations), I read the
: former as "a(x) to the tw
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Modified:
> >trunk/apps/p3/cgi-pir/slides.pir
> >trunk/compilers/past-pm/PAST/Node.pir
> >trunk/compilers/past-pm/POST/Node.pir
>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:06:22AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > ... are we at or near a point that past-pm could be removed
> > from the repository? What languages or tools are still using PAST-pm ?
> >
> ack -af
Moving this discussion to the ticket...
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Modified:
> >trunk/apps/p3/cgi-pir/slides.pir
> >trunk/compilers/past-pm/PAST/Node.pir
> >
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
all unary operators, be
they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated before any binary operator
is.
Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y). Note also that for certain
operations only integer values for
can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
* just release perl 6 now and move on
* do not hire 40 year olds with responsibilities, convince the
young to spend their time for free ... isn't that what one is supposed
to do after the age of 40 ?
* use all funds to promote its u
Larry Wall wrote:
> Now, I think I know how to make the parser use precedence on either
> a prefix or a postfix to get the desired effect (but perhaps not going
> both directions simulatenously). But that leads me to a slightly
> different parsing question, which comes from the asymmetry of po
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 + a(x)²!
Seems like a mathematician would be inclined to write that one as this instead:
1 + a²(x)!
That one is ambiguous because it could mean a(a(x)) or a(x)*a(x)
with the latter case bein
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
That's what I thought. Now note that ! can't easily be rewritten
as a simple binary operator (unless you do something recursive, and
then it's not simple).
Would $x! == [*]1..$x constitute simple parserwise? Admittedly
it's not a single but two ops and one of them a m
Hi James,
Your comment suggest you have a particular perspective or point of view.
Without providing a some context I'm afraid I'm going to find some of your
comments confusing.
>
> * just release perl 6 now and move on
>
This is one of those confusing comments. There isn't a single p6
implem
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: all unary operators, be they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated
: before any binary operator is.
And leaving the pool of voting mathematicians out of it for the moment,
how would you parse these:
sleep $then - $now
not $a eq
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 07:27:45 Will Coleda wrote:
> On feather, when running 'make test', the following tests both hang in
> an svn checkout:
>
> t/postconfigure/03-revision.t # hangs after test 4
> t/postconfigure/04-revision.t # hangs after test 4
>
> If I hit control-C when the hang occurs
TSa wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
> > all unary operators, be
> > they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated before any binary operator
> > is.
>
> Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
> That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y).
That's where we differ, then. I'm h
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
likewise, should these be parsed the same?
$a**2i
$a**2.i
and if so, how to we rationalize a class of postfix operators that
*look* like ordinary method calls but don't parse the same.
This is a conceptual problem that .blahh is visually nailed down on
the t
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:43:16PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> That's what I thought. Now note that ! can't easily be rewritten
>> as a simple binary operator (unless you do something recursive, and
>> then it's not simple).
>
> Would $x! == [*]1..$x constitute simple parse
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
>
> : all unary operators, be they prefix or postfix, should be evaluated
> : before any binary operator is.
>
> And leaving the pool of voting mathematicians out of
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Richard Dice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What all of myself, chromatic and Richard Hainsworth seem to appreciate is
> that a plan without resources to back it up is almost guaranteed to be
> ineffective. Even more than that, we have an appreciation that planning
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:35PM +0100, James Fuller wrote:
: oh ya and the ability to mate right we can
: leave the last one off ;)
No we can't. That is *precisely* what this whole business of derivable
grammars is about, and it came about because you couldn't mate two
source filters in P
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those don't strike me as being unary operators; they strike me as
> being function calls that have left out the parentheses.
At least through Perl5, 'tain't no difference between those two in Perl land.
As for binary !, you
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
> > Those don't strike me as being unary operators; they strike me as
> > being function calls that have left out the parentheses.
>
> At least through Perl5, 'tain't no difference between those two in Perl land.
True enough - though the question at hand
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:50:58 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Modified:
> >trunk/apps/p3/cgi-pir/slides.pir
> >trunk/compilers/past-pm/PAST/Node.pir
> >trunk/compilers/past-pm/POST/Node.pir
> ... are we at or nea
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:08:35PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 March 2008 10:50:58 Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:46PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Modified:
> > >trunk/apps/p3/cgi-pir/slides.pir
> > >trunk/compilers/past-pm/PAST/Node.p
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 11:08:15 James Fuller wrote:
> can I add a few unsolicited ruminations from a lurker;
>
>* just release perl 6 now and move on
To what extent?
Larry "just released" Perl 5 some 13 and a half years ago, and there've been a
few patches applied to it in the past 24 h
> I'm not even sure *that* will work. To invoke a Sub PMC from C, you
> need to pass in an Interp as well as the PMC. Unless you know both
> of those at compile time, I'm not sure how to make the callback
> mechanism work.
>
> ... although I just had an evil idea regarding memcpy and a hash table
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:56:08PM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
... In the
limit, suppose some defines a postfix "say" looser than comma:
(1,2,3)say
1,2,3say
1,2,3.say
I must be missing something. Wouldn't it be easier to write
1,2,3 say
since
> > I'll try to look into this. What's puzzling is that we get tested on
>> *many* Linux boxes but the overwhelming majority report no problem
here.
> something to do with svk being on the box but never having been run by
that user?
> istr something like this before. iirc hitting will make th
Thom Boyer wrote:
> But the main point I was trying to make is just that I didn't see the
> necessity of positing
>
> 1,2,3\say
>
> when (if I understand correctly) you could write that as simply as
>
> 1,2,3 say
Nope. This is the same situation as the aforementioned '++' example,
in
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 09:31 -0700, Grafman wrote:
He lives! Just kidding, I know you've had actual paid work going
on. :-)
> Hi chromatic - as you know, I took over the Perl OpenGL project over a
> year ago - you had mentioned that I might consider doing a port to
> Parrot; Geoffrey had suggest
Hi,
STD.pm has:
token whatever { '*' {*} }
But it's only referenced in the version token, and not anywhere else
more general. I'm guessing it maybe belongs in noun or term? Dropped it
in Rakudo's noun for now.
Thanks,
Jonathan
As far as I understand OpenGL, it's got one current context per
thread, and libGL does all sorts of evil things with threads and
thread-local storage to make it all work transparently. An
object-oriented OpenGL interface seems like the right way to go,
though, for all sorts of other reasons.
Arcad
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 12:26:35 James Fuller wrote:
> I do not think that its right to release
> perl6 for the language, but it might be 'right' to do for language
> adoption no doubt cathedral / bazaar forces are in effect.
I don't follow this; can you elaborate?
-- c
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 16:27 -0700, Bob Free wrote:
> Cool - great to hear from you - sorry that it's been a while since I've
> posted an update!
Real life can be so darned intrusive ;-)
> It'd be great to have you participate - you've done quite a lot for POGL.
> Regarding your work/ideas
e most
welcome to avoid Warnocking). In the meantime, anyone who wants to put
together a patch that implements the list above and attach it to the
ticket will earn themselves a cookie, payable at YAPC::NA. =-)
[1]
http://www.parrotcode.org/misc/parrotsketch-logs/irclog.parrot-200803/irclog.parrot
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:15:52AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> STD.pm has:
>
> token whatever { '*' {*} }
>
>
> But it's only referenced in the version token, and not anywhere else more
> general. I'm guessing it maybe belongs in noun or term? Dropped it in
> Rakudo's noun for no
>From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2008/03/26 Wed PM 05:13:17 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [perl #52130] [BUG] postconfigure tests hanging on feather.
>> > I'll try to look into this. What's puzzling is that we get tested on
>>> *many* Linux boxes but the o
Author: coke
Date: Wed Mar 26 19:35:50 2008
New Revision: 26571
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd23_exceptions.pod
Changes in other areas also in this revision:
Added:
trunk/docs/book/appendix.pod (contents, props changed)
Modified:
trunk/DEPRECATED.pod
trunk/MANIFEST
trunk/PBC_COMPA
On Sun Dec 16 20:25:04 2007, coke wrote:
> From src/ops/:
>
> op classoffset(out INT, invar PMC, in STR) :object_classes {
> real_exception(interp, NULL, UNIMPLEMENTED,
> "The 'classoffset' opcode has been deprecated, use named
> attribute access instead");
> }
>
>
> This stub ne
I have created the 'norevision' branch in our SVN repository to house
work on this ... but, hey, I don't have to be the only person working in
that branch!
kid51
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 06:09:50PM -0700, Will Coleda wrote:
> Basically, user problems are reported against a *release*. Anyone
> reporting a problem against something more fine grained than a release
> is a developer, and we should expect them to be able to use their own
> version control tools,
Coke: Although I agree with most of what you have written, I do want to
point out one instance where the SVN revision number has proved helpful
to me and which is a basis for retaining it.
Often times I am running 'make' and 'make test' multiple times in a
given day. I have written a program to
On Wed Mar 26 19:43:33 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have created the 'norevision' branch in our SVN repository to house
> work on this ... but, hey, I don't have to be the only person working in
> that branch!
>
Here is a preliminary patch -- not yet intended for application against
trunk
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:11:31AM -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> Can any of our Win32 developers examine this?
Also, the patch and file needs to be updated to use PGE::Perl6Regex
instead of PGE::P6Regex, as the latter is now deprecated
(see RT#48028).
Pm
70 matches
Mail list logo
