> From: Karen Pauley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:55 AM
>
> In response to the messages on the mailing list regarding Perl 6
> Fundraising
> TPF have been discussing two possible ways to handle donations and fund
> allocations for Perl 6.
>
> 1. add a new category
# New Ticket Created by dakkar
# Please include the string: [perl #53298]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53298 >
parrot r27159, built on Linux, both x86-32 and x86-64
Running the attached program produces:
Not being familiar with the big picture design* of Perl 6, I'm not able to
answer this. I assume that there is a clear reason, but what is it?
Nicholas Clark
* Heck, I'm also not familiar with the little bits either.
- Forwarded message from Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: [E
On Thu Apr 24 20:49:05 2008, geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 19:55 -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> > Please see patch attached. It turned out that config/auto/opengl.pm
> > didn't quite conform to the pattern, so I left it unchanged.
>
> Other than having a Darwin case, how is it differe
> Paul Fenwick perltraining.com.au> writes:
>
>>for ($foo) {
>> when ($_ < 500) { ++$_ }
>> when ($_ > 1000) { --$_ }
>> default { say "Just right $_" }
>>}
>
> Ahh... that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
>
> Makes you wonder why the 'given' keyword was added
In a message dated Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Moritz Lenz writes:
Paul Fenwick perltraining.com.au> writes:
for ($foo) {
when ($_ < 500) { ++$_ }
when ($_ > 1000) { --$_ }
default { say "Just right $_" }
}
Ahh... that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Make
AIUI, this is the difference:
given (@foo) {
# this code runs exactly once, topic is @foo
}
vs
for (@foo) {
# this code runs once per item in @foo, topic
# is @foo[0], then @foo[1], etc.
}
So eseentially,
given (@foo)
means the same as Perl5
for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Moritz Lenz moritz-at-casella.verplant.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Paul Fenwick perltraining.com.au> writes:
for ($foo) {
when ($_ < 500) { ++$_ }
when ($_ > 1000) { --$_ }
default { say "Just right $_" }
}
Ahh... that's exactly what I was looking for. T
Trey Harris trey-at-lopsa.org |Perl 6| wrote:
In 5.10, given seems to copy its argument, whereas for aliases it. (I
haven't looked at the code; maybe it's COW-ing it.) If you add a
C to the end of the below program, and then
change C to C and run the program with values of $foo less
than 5
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Do we still get to keep the current semantics if we specificially
declare a string? e.g.
I'd vote for that.
I'd vote for it as well with the following rational. Note that
a simple scalar parameter involves three types:
1) the constraint of the parameter
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:39 AM, John M. Dlugosz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that Perl 5.10 has given/when ?
Yes. Perl 5.10 has several Perl 6 features back-ported into it,
available via the "use feature" pragma: "say" (enables the say()
built-in), "state" (enables state vars),
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
for @foo {...}
is actually short for:
for @foo <-> $_ {...}
Ups, I missed that one. Do we also have the fill-me idiom
for @foo <- $_ {...}
And again the question if this is the same as
for @foo -> $_ is ref {...}
Regards, TSa.
--
"The unavoi
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:45 -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> > Other than having a Darwin case, how is it different than the pattern?
> The Darwin case is the difference.
Ah.
> > my $platform = $os =~ /mswin32/i && $cc =~ /^gcc/i ? 'win32_gcc' :
> > $os =~ /mswin32/i
Mark J. Reed wrote:
So eseentially,
given (@foo)
means the same as Perl5
for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Just wondering: should "given @foo {...}" alias to $_, or @_?
Someone looking for basic information about Squaak may have
difficulty finding it.
Below is some text I adapted from the parrotblog tutorial that
might be suitable as a starting point for a README in
languages/squaak. Feel free to add or modify it as appropriate.
Pm
[Adapted from the parrotblo
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #53344]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53344 >
I tripped over this while working on a stacks patch. It prevents
compilation without
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Subtle note -- the || really wants to be //, but as I recall we're not
> allowed to assume that // is there yet.)
>
correct, parrot depends on perl 5.8, so we can't rely on //.
so i strongly suggest you use the idi
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:12 AM, via RT Andy Dougherty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
> # Please include the string: [perl #53344]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53344
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 09:39 -0700, jerry gay wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Subtle note -- the || really wants to be //, but as I recall we're not
> > allowed to assume that // is there yet.)
> >
> correct, parrot depends on perl 5.8,
Dave Whipp writes:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> > So eseentially,
> > given (@foo)
> > means the same as Perl5
> > for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> Just wondering: should "given @foo {...}" alias to $_, or @_?
I'd expect it to alias to C<$_>, on the grounds that everything always
aliases to C<$_>
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #53350]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53350 >
a default build on feather is generating the following warnings:
src/jit_emit.h:1725: wa
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #53352]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53352 >
The following lines that use the STRUCT_COPY macro are generating
build warnings.
src/ch
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > 2. There are some casting and type-punning warnings that have, as their
> > ultimate cause, the STACK_DATAP() macro. Getting rid of the
> > type-punning warning gives rise to a cast alignment warning.
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #53356]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53356 >
Miscellaneous build warnings that need to be cleaned up.
src/key.c:306: warning: switch
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
sub incr (Any $x is rw)
{
if $x.VAR.WHAT ~~ Str {...} # "-100" -> "-101"
else {...} # "-100" -> "-99"
}
This doesn't work because $x.VAR accesses the inner container and
that has constraint Any which effec
Smylers wrote:
Dave Whipp writes:
So eseentially,
given (@foo)
means the same as Perl5
for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Just wondering: should "given @foo {...}" alias to $_, or @_?
I'd expect it to alias to C<$_>, on the grounds that everything always
aliases to C<$_>.
What's the argument
The topic should always be $_ unless explicitly requested differently
via the arrow.
Now in the case of for, it might be nice if @_ bound to the entire
collection being iterated over (if any)...
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
for @foo {...}
is actually short for:
for @foo <-> $_ {...}
Ups, I missed that one. Do we also have the fill-me idiom
for @foo <- $_ {...}
No. There is no concept of output parameters.
And again
Dave Whipp dave-at-whipp.name |Perl 6| wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
So eseentially,
given (@foo)
means the same as Perl5
for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Just wondering: should "given @foo {...}" alias to $_, or @_?
$_. It will contain the whole list as one item, like what Perl 5 does
with [E
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:19:27PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
>given @foo {
> when .length > 5 { say "That's a long list" }
> when .length == Inf { say "That's a very long list" }
> when .WHAT ~~ Range { say "That's an iterator" }
> }
Erm, .length is dead, and .WHAT
Mark J. Reed wrote:
The topic should always be $_ unless explicitly requested differently
via the arrow.
Now in the case of for, it might be nice if @_ bound to the entire
collection being iterated over (if any)...
As a perl5-ism:
sub foo { say @_; }
...
given (@bar) {
when ... { &foo }
Good idea!
I'll add the file (if nobody beats me to it).
BTW, I think it'd be good to keep Squaak up to date, meaning that once
return statements are supported in PAST, that these are added as well.
This way it can be used as a complete showcase, demonstrating all of
PAST.
As soon as PAST is fea
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:37PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
> As a perl5-ism:
>
> sub foo { say @_; }
>
> ...
>
> given (@bar) {
> when ... { &foo }
> }
>
>
> Does perl6 still have some implicit mechanism to say "call sub using
> current arglist"?
Yes, you can do it implicitly with one of calls
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Inf is just a special value that you can use in a signature, so multiple
dispatch already can handle that.
My muse took a liking to that. The Inf values are not treated much in
the synopses. It never says that Inf is something that MMD can se
To loop back to my earlier question:
In Perl 5.10:
use strict;
use warnings;
use feature qw(switch say);
my $foo = 10;
for ($foo) {
when ($foo < 50) { $_++ }
}
say "for: $foo";
$foo = 10;
given ($foo) {
when ($foo < 50) { $_++ }
}
say
Dave Whipp dave-at-whipp.name |Perl 6| wrote:
Does perl6 still have some implicit mechanism to say "call sub using
current arglist"?
(No, I'm not arguing to support any of this: just asking the questions)
Yes. You can use 'callsame' and it knows the current argument list.
You can get a
Please forgive my ignorance up front. I'm very much a beginner. Ok,
I'm trying to be able to look at the individual characters of a string
with the ultimate hope of being able to parse messages based on a
series of messages of variable length. I thought I had found the
answer with the following
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Conrad Schneiker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:59 PM
>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Patrick R. Michaud
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > - The sidebar links
Just out of idle curiousity, (and so I can explain it when training), I
would like to know the original motivation for string/number arithmetic.
My guess is automatic generation of predictable filenames. Am I anywhere
close?
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to
# New Ticket Created by "Brad Gilbert"
# Please include the string: [perl #53362]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=53362 >
I added a test for the sysinfo op. The main reason I decided to work
on it is so that
1) Wrong list. This list is for the folks who are currently
implementing the new language Perl 6.
You want [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to subscribe, and please send any
followups there rather than here.
2) Strings in Perl are not objects, and there is no "String" cla
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
However, &foo doesn't mean what it means in Perl 5. It's just the
function as a noun rather than a verb.
Larry
A gerund.
On Sun Apr 08 11:52:15 2007, ptc wrote:
> There is a warning in src/ops/pmc.ops within the find_type() op:
>
> KLUDGE ALERT - XXX FIXME - THIS LOGIC SHOULD BE IN pmc_type_p()
>
> This needs to be fixed.
The opcode this warning is listed in is scheduled for deletion; there's no need
to resolve t
43 matches
Mail list logo
