James deBoer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ to OP ]
This patch will test to see if perldoc actually works, aborting the
configuration if it does not.
Can you convert that test to produce a fat warning and skip targets
relying on perldoc?
Thanks,
leo
Thursday, November 11, 2004, 5:42:29 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Or something like that.
[snip]
FWIW, I really like the idea.
Will there be a data type for characters, or are those just strings
with a single grapheme?
As a side note, the Java people decided for UTF-16 Unicode chars,
and some good
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff~
Yes, but in the case of the continuation resuming after foo, the
continuation should restore the frame to the point where it was taken.
Thus all of the registers will be exactly as they were when the
continuation was taken (i.e. in the correct
This adds information about the result of a test if the information is
terse enough. i.e. changes:
Determining whether your cc is actually gcc...done.
Into:
Determining whether your cc is actually gccyes.
Enjoy,
Luke
Index: config/auto/aio.pl
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #32434]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32434
Hi,
this patch adds support for the String PMC to
As outlined in the analysis of dumper.t failures with the new register
allocator, we have another problem with current calling or better return
conventions.
Given this simple program:
$ cat ret.imc
.sub main @MAIN
P5 = new PerlString
P5 = ok\n
foo()
print P5
.end
.sub foo
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This adds information about the result of a test if the information is
terse enough. i.e. changes:
Determining whether your cc is actually gcc...done.
Into:
Determining whether your cc is actually gccyes.
Thanks, applied.
--
At 1:04 PM +0100 11/14/04, Ron Blaschke wrote:
Thursday, November 11, 2004, 5:42:29 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Or something like that.
[snip]
FWIW, I really like the idea.
Will there be a data type for characters, or are those just strings
with a single grapheme?
Strings with a single grapheme.
At 11:01 PM +0100 11/13/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get the feeling that this is equivalent to requiring exception
handlers to be a locally defined closure, which is another way we
could go about this.
Yes. That solves it. OTOH going all along with
At 5:53 PM +0100 11/13/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
As the analysis of test errors of the new reigster allocator has
shown, we have a problem WRT register allocation. This problem isn't
new, but as the allocator is more efficiently reusing registers (or
reusing them in a different way) it's
Sam Ruby wrote:
A patch is attached, but it bears a little discussion.
Well, that didn't exactly work. I've since commmitted these patches,
and more. A the moment, all the python and pirate unit tests pass. (Woot!)
In the absense of other direction, I plan to write more tests and use
them to
On Nov 14, 2004, at 1:53 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Since, for example, it's completely reasonable (well, likely at least)
for a called sub to rebind lexicals in its parent
What does that mean, exactly? It seems like that directly contradicts
the meaning of lexical. For instance, see Larry's
PDD03: Responsibility for environment preservation
PDD03:
PDD03: The caller is responsible for preserving any environment it is interested
PDD03: in keeping. This includes any and all registers, lexical scoping and
PDD03: scratchpads, opcode libraries, and so forth.
PDD03:
PDD03: Use of the
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:03:33 -0500, Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:53 PM +0100 11/13/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
As the analysis of test errors of the new reigster allocator has
shown, we have a problem WRT register allocation. This problem isn't
new, but as the allocator is more
14 matches
Mail list logo
