Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs
Commit: 3ac3d18ecf4e9205b4457fc1f9a13106bde1bceb
https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/3ac3d18ecf4e9205b4457fc1f9a13106bde1bceb
Author: Stéphane Payrard
Date: 2015-10-13 (Tue, 13 Oct 2015)
Changed paths:
M S
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs
Commit: 8fb3cd9b332c69e88ffc00b8be0a105c98142313
https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/8fb3cd9b332c69e88ffc00b8be0a105c98142313
Author: Nova Patch
Date: 2015-10-13 (Tue, 13 Oct 2015)
Changed paths:
M S02-bit
On 10/13/2015 10:52 AM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Following on the :D not :D thread, something odd stuck out.
On 10/13/2015 03:17 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
But hopefully none of them breaking backwards compatibility on such a
large scale. The last few backwards incompatible changes still cause
p
* Moritz Lenz (mor...@faui2k3.org) [151014 09:54]:
> In Practice, there's a small number of people who try to update modules to
> match when the compiler changed. Most module authors don't hang out in
> #perl6, eager to update their modules to the lastest rakudo change.
With the relatively small n
I have a proposal.
Unlike with say the GLR, perhaps this whole :D thing may be a good test case for
the Perl 6 feature of explicit language versioning.
How about we don't make the :D change now, and give more thought as to whether
we actually want to do it at all.
If we do decide it is wort
Hi Patrick, thank you for your thoughts. I needed a bit more time
for the response ;-)
* Patrick R. Michaud (pmich...@pobox.com) [151013 01:05]:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:32:01AM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
> > Yes, that what I started realizing when I saw all the pain Perl6 goes to
> > ignor
> * Patrick R. Michaud (pmich...@pobox.com) [151013 01:05]:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:32:01AM +0200, Mark Overmeer wrote:
>>> Yes, that what I started realizing when I saw all the pain Perl6 goes to
>>> ignore the existence of a real "undef" in the language. (I follow Perl6
>>> from a short d
Is this particular change one that could be implemented
algorithmically, or at least partially so?
(E.g. For all modules
check for the presence of a ":D".
If it's there, no action.
If not, insert a line of code. Run a test.
If successful, post change.
If not, alert a human)
On 2015-10-14 6:14 AM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
Is this particular change one that could be implemented
algorithmically, or at least partially so?
(E.g. For all modules
check for the presence of a ":D".
If it's there, no action.
If not, insert a line of code. Run a test.
If su
