Author: allison
Date: Thu Dec 20 00:53:11 2007
New Revision: 24108
Added:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd27_multiple_dispatch.pod
Changes in other areas also in this revision:
Modified:
trunk/MANIFEST
Log:
[pdd] Launch the Multiple Dispatch PDD.
Added: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd27_multiple_dispatch.pod
===
Hi,
Just given this a quick read over; looks pretty good. The only thing I
don't see is a way to get the Sub PMC that is going to be invoked
without actually invoking it. Invoke does the lookup and then the call,
but what if I want to supply the arguments, and then just work out what
will be
Author: allison
Date: Thu Dec 20 01:31:52 2007
New Revision: 24110
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/pdd27_multiple_dispatch.pod (contents, props changed)
Log:
[pdd] Set file properties on new PDD 27.
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/pdd27_multiple_dispatch.pod
===
hi,
looks good as far as I can tell. W.r.t. the selection part, the "don't care"
type is missing, which is "_" IIRC.
So,
.sub foo :multi(Integer,_,_)
.param pmc i :invocant
.param pmc j
.param pmc k
.end
(must j and k be flagged as :invocant?)
then this foo can be invoked with 2 parameters,
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
looks good as far as I can tell. W.r.t. the selection part, the "don't care" type is
missing, which is "_" IIRC.
My guess is that if you can specify which parameters are invocants, with
:invocant, then the need for an "any" type goes away, since you just
don't mark the
On Dec 19, 2007 11:30 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Next month's development milestone is the implementation of the new PMC
> spec. This milestone involves many small tasks, which can be divided up
> pretty easily between a handful of people. Now that Jonathan's shipped
> the rel
I guess you're right :-) I was thinking of ambiguity, like
.sub foo :multi(Integer, Integer)
.param pmc i :invocant
.param pmc j
.param pmc k :invocant
.end
.sub foo :multi (Integer, Integer)
.param pmc j :invocant
.param pmc k :invocant
.end
but I guess parrot will see that the other foo h
On 20/12/2007, James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Cochrane wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > these failures probably aren't critical for release, however I thought
> > it best to mention them.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > System: Solaris 9
> > cc: Sun C 5.8 2005/10/13
> > Parrot revision: 24033
That output suggests that you dont have libpcre installed, which makes
it not much of a test for the patch. :)
On 12/19/07, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon Dec 03 20:04:08 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Uploading updated version of patch based on discussion with chroma
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:20:22AM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >
> >Of course, in the previous object model I think there was only
> >one place to look, and find_method did the searching.
>
> In the previous model, there was no distinction between subroutines and
>
Mark is correct. If the pcre-config program cannot be found, then
this is the condition you should expect.
Note that libpcre does not come with OSX, so this is not unusual (I
have it installed via Fink).
Devin
On Dec 20, 2007 8:48 AM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That output sugges
On Sun Dec 16 21:11:34 2007, coke wrote:
> From PDD 19:
>
> NOTE: The use of C<::> in identifiers is deprecated.
>
what exactly does this mean?
I take it that "::" can still appear in typenames, as in "PAST::Op", but
not, for instance like so:
.local int some::var
Is that it?
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:49 PM, "Klaas-Jan Stol via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Sun Dec 16 21:11:34 2007, coke wrote:
From PDD 19:
NOTE: The use of C<::> in identifiers is deprecated.
what exactly does this mean?
I take it that "::" can still appear in type
No complaints; resolving ticket.
Patch applied to trunk in r24118. Devin Heitmueller++ for his first
contribution to Parrot!
kid51
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #48965]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48965 >
Running 'make test' tonight on Linux (configuration run by Perl
5.10), I got the follo
On Dec 20, 2007 7:22 PM, via RT James Keenan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by James Keenan
> # Please include the string: [perl #48965]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48965 >
>
>
> Runnin
On Thu Dec 20 19:35:39 2007, particle wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 7:22 PM, via RT James Keenan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This test was passing 24 hours earlier, so I suspect some change
> > since r24106.
> >
> 24 hours earlier, you didn't have perl 5.10. could you try with an
> earlier ver
# New Ticket Created by Walter M Szeliga
# Please include the string: [perl #48971]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=48971 >
On a PPC with OSX 10.5.1
Parrot revision number r24118
Running
perl Configure.pl
ma
19 matches
Mail list logo
