On 12/21/05, via RT Justin Koser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Justin Koser
# Please include the string: [perl #37997]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37997
Hello Parrot
Uri == Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uri sorting in p6 is not at all like in p5. instead of coding up an explicit
Uri comparison code block and duplicating all the key access code (for $a
Uri and $b), you will specify how to extract/generate each key for a given
Uri record. this new
RLS == Randal L Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com writes:
Uri == Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uri sorting in p6 is not at all like in p5. instead of coding up an explicit
Uri comparison code block and duplicating all the key access code (for $a
Uri and $b), you will specify how to
Uri == Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uri i will let damian handle this one (if he sees it). but an idea would be
Uri to allow some form ofkey extraction via a closure with lazy evaluation
Uri of the secondary (and slower) key.
I still don't see that. I understand about the lazy key
RLS == Randal L Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com writes:
Uri == Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uri i will let damian handle this one (if he sees it). but an idea would be
Uri to allow some form ofkey extraction via a closure with lazy evaluation
Uri of the secondary (and slower) key.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:25:09AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Uri == Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uri i will let damian handle this one (if he sees it). but an idea would be
Uri to allow some form ofkey extraction via a closure with lazy evaluation
Uri of the secondary (and
Here's a scenario we have here at Yahoo!.
The code we're testing depends on XML feeds from backend servers, which
may sometimes be overloaded and not respond. The frontend servers work
around this, but it would be better if we could fail a test, wait a
bit, then go back and run it again a
For some variety, you might want to take a look at the JavaScript
implemention of the Test::* family, which we managed to build
asyncronous testing into, so you can do things like onTimeout
pseudo-threads that will happen asyncronously from your main testing.
Now granted, that doesn't deal
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
However, what do we do about:
while $x-- some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash, not a do-nothing code. Should we
force people to
