If the idea of having an author attribute is to allow multiple
implementations of a module, why not add an API version attribute? The
idea would be to detach the module version number from the module API
version number.
This way, if I want to reimplement Foo::Bar, I wouldn't be required to
use th
?? and !! could always return some kind of result object that boolizes
to true or false.
Zev
Audrey Tang wrote:
>
> 在 Jun 11, 2007 5:10 AM 時，Jonathan Lang 寫到：
>> A variation of chaining associativity gets
>> used, with the "chaining rule" being '$v1 op1 $v2 // $v1 op2 $v3'
>> instead of '$v1 op
$*ARGS is mentioned in S02/S04 as being the magic filehandle iterator.
However, S06 refers to the "$*ARGS capture." Is there a typo somewhere?
Zev
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
> On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
>> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
>> (which I found). I also added spectests that are marked TODO (but which
>> pass with this patch applied).
>
> I would prefer to see this done by us
Patrick R. Michaud via RT wrote:
> On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
>> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
>> (which I found). I also added spectests that are marked TODO (but which
>> pass with this patch applied).
>
> I would prefer to see this done by us
http://www.parrotcode.org/source.html claims the last dump was done in
Aug 2006. Would someone be willing to update that dump? I'm going to
be on a train tomorrow for 6 hours and would like to be able to do some
work on parrot with version control.
Zev
> What happens if you run using "parrot perl6.pbc" instead
No difference.
> of the perl6 executable? If you still get the segfault, how
> about trying parrot with the -G option?
This stops the segfault.
>
> How about if the code to be executed is read from a file instead
> of being run via in
I was confused about the "Toggle Cc" Javascript link. See RT for the
patch (should these normally be CC'd to p6-compiler?).
Zev
On Mon Dec 22 16:41:53 2008, zev wrote:
> Oops. The last patch wasn't quite right. This one passes the tests
> (which I found). I also added spectests that are mark
On Mon Dec 22 21:51:05 2008, masak wrote:
> Patrick (>):
> > I would prefer to see this done by using a smart match on the :x()
> > argument instead of explicitly checking it for a Range and grabbing
> > min/max from there. Using a smart match would allow things like
> > :x(1|5|7) and :x({ .is_pri
There is a patch in RT #50550.
Zev
10 matches
Mail list logo
