# New Ticket Created by Moritz Lenz
# Please include the string: [perl #55304]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55304
Attached patch, mostly courtesy Vasily bacek Chekalkin, adds the
eval_lives_ok and
# New Ticket Created by Moritz Lenz
# Please include the string: [perl #55338]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55338
rakudo as of r28087 doesn't implement the sub form fo WHAT() (S12:1862).
(This is
This message is looking for a clarification/confirmation.
S12:207 says:
To call an ordinary method with ordinary method-dispatch semantics,
use either the dot notation or indirect object notation:
$obj.doit(1,2,3)
doit $obj: 1,2,3
If the method was not found, it will fall back
Qui, 2008-06-05 às 11:04 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud escreveu:
Does fall back to a subroutine occur anytime we don't have
a method with a matching signature? For example, if we have
as far as I understand it, it only falls back to sub-dispach if the
method dispatch would otherwise fail, which
# New Ticket Created by Moritz Lenz
# Please include the string: [perl #55350]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55350
Rakudo as of r28105 suffers from low precision in its exp() function.
rakudo:
say
# New Ticket Created by Moritz Lenz
# Please include the string: [perl #55346]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=55346
Attached patch adds a script to tools/ that walks through a test
specification file
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:29:25PM +0100, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Qui, 2008-06-05 às 11:04 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud escreveu:
Does fall back to a subroutine occur anytime we don't have
a method with a matching signature? For example, if we have
as far as I
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:08PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Okay, so my bad example didn't provide an answer to my
original question. Let's try it this way:
class Foo {
multi method bar(Dog $x) { say Foo::bar; }
}
sub bar(Int $x) { say sub bar; }
my
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Oops, forgot to attach patch. Now it's really there.
Your implementations of eval_lives_ok and eval_dies_ok seem
inconsistent. eval_lives_ok uses try and eval_dies_ok does not. The
two implementations may catch different types of exceptions. I am
proposing the patch
Ronald Schmidt wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Oops, forgot to attach patch. Now it's really there.
Your implementations of eval_lives_ok and eval_dies_ok seem
inconsistent. eval_lives_ok uses try and eval_dies_ok does not. The
two implementations may catch different types of exceptions.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:04:52AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: This message is looking for a clarification/confirmation.
: S12:207 says:
:
: To call an ordinary method with ordinary method-dispatch semantics,
: use either the dot notation or indirect object notation:
:
:
On 2008 Jun 5, at 18:43, Larry Wall wrote:
Maybe it's just a temporary lack of imagination, but I'm having
trouble
these days coming up with any kind of a use case for confusing single
dispatch with multiple dispatch. Yeah, I know I wrote that, but I was
either smarter or stupider back
12 matches
Mail list logo
