When we write regexes, we generally capture stuff in a way that makes
the following semantic analysis easier. For example we could have a
regex m/ + ? */ if we're only interested in the match
trees of what and matches, not their respective order.
But if you want to re-used the match tree for som
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> When we write regexes, we generally capture stuff in a way that makes
> the following semantic analysis easier. For example we could have a
> regex m/ + ? */ if we're only interested in the match
> trees of what and matches, not their
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:59:31PM -0700, Will Coleda wrote:
> After building parrot, cd compilers/tge && make test;
>
> Test Summary Report
> ---
> ../../t/compilers/tge/basic.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 3 Failed: 1)
> Failed test: 1
> Non-zero exit status: 1
> ../../t/compilers/tg
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:44:05AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> When we write regexes, we generally capture stuff in a way that makes
>> the following semantic analysis easier. For example we could have a
>> regex m/ + ? */ if we're only interested in the match
>> trees
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Patrick R. Michaud via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:59:31PM -0700, Will Coleda wrote:
>> After building parrot, cd compilers/tge && make test;
>>
>> Test Summary Report
>> ---
>> ../../t/compilers/tge/basic.t (Wstat: 2
I was able to surface long enough to review the use of perl modules in our
current, perl5-based architecture. And the answer is that we hardly use any,
because it was written against an old version of perl5 shipped with a very
limited set of modules and little or no ability to add CPAN modules.
Elyse M. Grasso wrote:
> I was able to surface long enough to review the use of perl modules in our
> current, perl5-based architecture. And the answer is that we hardly use any,
> because it was written against an old version of perl5 shipped with a very
> limited set of modules and little or n
Actually, if the parts of perl6 needed for Cwd and File::Copy are not well
specced yet, porting them is probably a very useful place to start in terms of
getting perl6 ready for prime time. Even if I'm not successful at porting them
in the first pass, the questions and problems I come up with ma
Hello.
There is patch for this (and not only this) issue.
1. Change logic in compilers/pct/src/PAST/Compiler.pir to handle
'control' attribute.
2. Implement "break" built-in in Rakudo.
3. Add "break" call to each "when" statements (in Rakudo)
--
Bacek
control_break.pir
Description: Binary dat
# New Ticket Created by "Carl Mäsak"
# Please include the string: [perl #59828]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59828 >
r31879:
$ perl6 -e 'rule x = { x }'
get_iter() not implemented in class 'Closure'
[...]
# New Ticket Created by Klaas-Jan Stol
# Please include the string: [perl #59830]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59830 >
currently, the .line directive takes both an integer (for line number) and a
string (f
Andrew Whitworth said:
> Instead of simply giving all optables a unique identifier, maybe we
> should add them to a hash with the name of the "is optable" rule
> being the key for it. That way we could get to the various optables
> by name. Languages like Perl6 that expect to only have one optable
# New Ticket Created by Moritz Lenz
# Please include the string: [perl #59832]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59832 >
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:03:35PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:27 AM, via RT Klaas-Jan Stol
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> currently, the .line directive takes both an integer (for line number) and a
> string (for filename) argument.
> I propose to split these into a separate .line and .file directives, both
> only taking 1 argument.
>
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Moritz Lenz wrote:
I would like to use an official CGI.pm, if one is available.
Please forget about the "official". Perl 6 will hopefully have multiple
implementations, and they are all "official" if they pass the test suite.
From what I've gathered so far, Perl 6 core wi
Elyse M. Grasso wrote:
Actually, if the parts of perl6 needed for Cwd and File::Copy are not well
specced yet, porting them is probably a very useful place to start in terms of
getting perl6 ready for prime time. Even if I'm not successful at porting them
in the first pass, the questions and pr
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
From what I've gathered so far, Perl 6 core will only be shipped with
the modules needed to install more modules, for which CGI certainly
isn't needed.
Just as a word of explanation for Elyse, the reasoning I saw
behind this was, if we ship it with few enough modu
17 matches
Mail list logo
