On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:16, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Say, I just noticed this:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
.sub foo
push_eh handler
get_params '(0)', $P0# no .params yet - sorry
I remember at one point that get_params had to be the fi
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:45:49AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> While strict argument checking is and was always in the pdd03, it was
> not enforced and is only checkable since today. Therefore I'd like to
> keep current settings until after the release.
Works for me.
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EM
On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:08, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:39:58PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
At any rate, I found and fixed the two PGE subs that weren't declaring
their (unused) parameters. All p6rules tests now appear to pass in
r10278 with .PARROT_ERRORS_PARAM_COUN
Say, I just noticed this:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>.sub foo
> push_eh handler
> get_params '(0)', $P0# no .params yet - sorry
I remember at one point that get_params had to be the first opcode in
the sub. I didn't like that, but I
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:39:58PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> At any rate, I found and fixed the two PGE subs that weren't declaring
> their (unused) parameters. All p6rules tests now appear to pass in
> r10278 with .PARROT_ERRORS_PARAM_COUNT_FLAG enabled.
Excellent.
Leo, would you be
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Thus, we really ought to have a way to indicate that a rule (parrot
> >sub) can still be safely run even if called with more parameters
> >than it expects.
>
> Isn't this what :
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:27:52PM -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Short answer: something like a ":last" flag would be excellent.
> >
> >Longer answer: In PGE, each rule is a parrot sub, and some rules
> >can be parameterized by various param
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:00:36AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
until now, and still doesn't. [1]
[1] all P
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:00:36AM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
> > until now, and still doesn't. [1]
> > [1] all PGE and PGE-based stuff is failing, when both ar
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:18:40PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch
> until now, and still doesn't. [1]
> [1] all PGE and PGE-based stuff is failing, when both are turned on
Exceptions should still be the default, even if PGE needs so
Parrot didn't throw exceptions on param or result count mismatch until
now, and still doesn't. [1]
But, I have invented 2 more error flag bits [2], which can enable
stricter argument checking and the exception is catchable in the
subroutine itself now:
.include "errors.pasm"
errorson .P
11 matches
Mail list logo
