# New Ticket Created by chromatic
# Please include the string: [perl #31292]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31292
Hi there,
This test case and patch demonstrates and fixes a problem where *Structs
Aaron Sherman wrote:
=table C$_ | C$x | Type of Match Implied | Matching Code
=row Any | CodeC $ | scalar sub truth | match if
C$x($_)
That's (the above comments aside) the same thing, and as I said when
Luke suggested it, it seems fine if that's the way we'd prefer to go.
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
anyway I just dont see what could be wrong with the way parrot could be
passing the user_data?
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
Whats the difference between the way parrot calls this,
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
I now tried calling g_cclosure_new_object() and
g_signal_connect_closure() directly. Doesn't segfault anymore (at least,
Mattia Barbon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure about this patch. It splits part of Parrot_load_lib
into a Parrot_init_lib(Interp, load_func_ptr, init_func_ptr)
So its applied finally. Thanks,
leo
chromatic (via RT) wrote:
Hi there,
This test case and patch demonstrates and fixes a problem where *Structs
sharing initializers that contain structs end up sharing a single nested
*Struct.
I'm not convinced the behavior is completely correct. It breaks one
other test
I'd rather not have the
Luke Palmer wrote:
And as I look at the code for that test:
It looks bogus. Is a PerlHash supposed to accept an integer as a key?
AFAIK yes.
The test output to this one is:
4
Four is 0
Yep. See #31128
leo
# New Ticket Created by Matt Fowles
# Please include the string: [perl #31285]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31285
All~
This patch is an early step in getting a scons based build system for
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
The whole idea behind callbacks is, that there is a userdata argument
that get's passed through
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits an Cend opcode. But
At 10:48 AM +0200 8/21/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Steve Fink wrote:
... For PerlHash, P0[foo;3] seems to be interpreted as an
iterator access? I hope there's some other way of indicating that.
Yep, KEY_integer_FLAG used to indicate, get me the next key and is
used by the iterator. But as your
Comparison was the one thing left out of the charset API from
earlier. So here's the API entry:
INTVAL compare(STRING, STRING)
Compares the two strings. Returns 1 if the left side is
lexically greater, -1 if the right side is lexically greater, and 0
if they're the same. Currently this
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It's not so much that
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-08-23 12:53 (-0400):
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant
(...)
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ever really
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've
# New Ticket Created by Dan Sugalski
# Please include the string: [perl #31302]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31302
Current CVS parrot looks to be losing track of NCI PMCs. Once a DOD
run goes
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.) (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ()
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that may be
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo it
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
my Foo $obj .= new;
# OR #
require Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
import
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:14:51PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Stephane Peiry wrote:
g_return_val_if_fail (G_IS_OBJECT (gobject), 0); Fails here
gtk shouldn't make assumption on the user_data argument IMHO.
[...]
call is NULL, because of the same check,
Folks,
A word of warning -- I've disabled the JIT's auto-generation of NCI
function headers on x86 systems. This is partly in an attempt to
track down problems I'm having with NCI calls segfaulting, and partly
because I keep adding in new function definitions only to find that
they don't work
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
about proposing something like:
sub foo (
Foo::Bar$bar,
Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
+$verbose,
+$foo
) description
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
reasons to
Hello,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
[ snip ]
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
is $foo implicitely declared as our or my (or
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets invoked, at which
time it runs until it hits an
mh.. guess P is an actuall pointer to PMC, in that case forget that part.. :)
Stephane
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:15:03PM +0200, Stephane Peiry wrote:
[signatures question gone]
*If* that is solved then the next problem is of course that by calling
gtk_main() the GTK event loop is running.
At 7:13 AM -0700 8/23/04, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:03 PM -0700 8/21/04, Steve Fink wrote:
I am experimenting with registering my own compiler for the regex
language, but the usage is confusing. It seems that the intention is
that compilers will return a code object that gets
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-08-23 23:12 (+0100):
I doubt that's a problem, as C:: as part of the ternary operator is
only going to be found where an operator is expected, and C:: as part
of a module name is only going to be found where an identifier is
expected, so it's a matter of looking
Juerd writes:
Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
used.
How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
I hope it's an error, although some
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the
Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new(blah);
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new(blah);
Dave.
There has been a lot of discussion in the other threads lately about
iterators. I was wondering if there will be an easy way to create a
bidirectional iterator? Toy example to show what I'm thinking:
for(1..10) {
next if /7/; # always skip 7
prev if 9 !rand 3; # occasionally
Leo's been nudging me to get the behaviours of the basic types
defined, so I'm working on updating PDD 17 with them.
The unary behavior of the types is reasonably straightforward. What
I'm puzzling over right now is the binary behavior. It's the edge
cases that are troublesome, of course --
Dan~
I was originally going to say do them all or do the integer
division/no overflow check option, but then something occurred to me.
We already have I registers. If someone wants speed they should be
using them anyway. If someone doesn't care about speed, but wants
those semantics, their
Dave Whipp wrote:
Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new(blah);
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new(blah);
Wow, that's pretty amazing... uh...
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just
Aaron Sherman writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and bug-fixes it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
44 matches
Mail list logo
