Re: [perl #48705] [doc] pasttype 'chain' missing in pdd26?

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:09:15AM -0800, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: > In compilers/pct/src/PAST/Compiler.pir there is support for the pasttype > 'chain'. > However I could not find it in docs/pdds/pdd26_ast.pod. > > So, should documentation of 'chain' be added to PDD26? Sure. Part of the impl

[perl #41226] [TODO] update DEPRECATED.pod

On Sat Dec 01 14:49:04 2007, coke wrote: > On Wed Mar 21 20:42:59 2007, coke wrote: > > On Wed Jan 10 13:37:32 2007, particle wrote: > > > there's plenty of items in DEPRECATED.pod that have been there for a > > > release or more, and are ripe for the picking. deprecate them, and > > > modify chang

[svn:parrot-pdd] r23998 - in trunk: . docs/pdds/draft include/parrot src/ops src/pmc

Author: coke Date: Sun Dec 16 21:56:31 2007 New Revision: 23998 Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod Changes in other areas also in this revision: Modified: trunk/DEPRECATED.pod trunk/include/parrot/oo_private.h trunk/src/ops/object.ops trunk/src/ops/pmc.ops trunk/src/p

[perl #48737] [DEPRECATED] .namespace PIR syntax

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #48737] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48737 > >From PDD19: =item .namespace [deprecated] Open a new scope block. This "namespace" is

[perl #48735] [DEPRECATED] :: in PIR identifiers

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #48735] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48735 > >From PDD 19: NOTE: The use of C<::> in identifiers is deprecated. -- Will "Coke" Cole

[perl #48733] [DEPRECATED] 'v' arg signature

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #48733] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48733 > tools/build/nativecall.pl treats 'v' as a special failing arg signature, warning that it

[perl #48729] [DEPRECATED] int variants of getattribute/setattribute opcodes

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #48729] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48729 > >From src/ops/object.ops: inline op setattribute(invar PMC, in INT, invar PMC) :object_c

[perl #48727] [DEPRECATED] classoffset opcode

# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #48727] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48727 > >From src/ops/: op classoffset(out INT, invar PMC, in STR) :object_classes { real_ex

Re: NCI PMC comments

These statements are removed in r23981. kjs On Dec 16, 2007 4:16 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Worthington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > At the top of the NCI PMC, there are these comments: > > > > -- > > Invoking an NCI function changes some registers according to PDD 3. >

Re: [perl #48493] [CAGE] Parrot::Configure::Step: Explicitly pass all arguments to all methods

James Keenan via RT wrote: For no reason more profound than ease of editing, when I went to require that each of 6 Parrot::Configure::Step methods be passed $conf explicitly, I put that argument first. Which of course makes it look much like a Parrot::Configure method call. And since the Parrot

[perl #48705] [doc] pasttype 'chain' missing in pdd26?

# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer # Please include the string: [perl #48705] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48705 > In compilers/pct/src/PAST/Compiler.pir there is support for the pasttype 'chain

Re: [perl #48677] [BUG] r23917 led to 'make' failure

Allison Randal wrote: Jonathan Worthington wrote: I suspect re-writing it to do a memcpy would solve the problem...anyway, sleep calls... See the thread from earlier this year: Having t

Re: NCI PMC comments

Jonathan Worthington wrote: Hi, At the top of the NCI PMC, there are these comments: -- Invoking an NCI function changes some registers according to PDD 3. The caller has to preserve registers if needed. -- Am I right in thinking that's no longer true? Yes, PDD 3 no longer uses specific reg

Re: [perl #48677] [BUG] r23917 led to 'make' failure

Jonathan Worthington wrote: I suspect re-writing it to do a memcpy would solve the problem...anyway, sleep calls... See the thread from earlier this year: Allison

Re: on non-pdd documentation

On Dec 16, 2007 1:02 PM, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2007 5:46 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: > > > > > > First of all, I certainly agree with this POV (even though I myself > > tend to > > > put in details in stuff that i u

Re: on non-pdd documentation

On Dec 16, 2007 1:10 PM, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the .pod files from the source, imho. (does parrot have a "make docs" > > target?) > > Yes, it's the "make html" target. > > Paul thanks, I found that make docs works as well.

Re: on non-pdd documentation

> the .pod files from the source, imho. (does parrot have a "make docs" > target?) Yes, it's the "make html" target. Paul

Re: on non-pdd documentation

On Dec 15, 2007 5:46 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: > > > > First of all, I certainly agree with this POV (even though I myself tend > to > > put in details in stuff that i update, for instance PDD19. The thing is, > I > > don't have a better solution where t