I've just uploaded Test::Harness 2.51_02. It turns off the timer by
default, and adds a --timer switch to prove. Please try it out and see
if all is well because I'm going to make it 2.52 tomorrow.
And now, I must go to bed so I can drive to Toronto...
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL
Roger Browne wrote:
Hi,
What is parrot's default method resolution order? Is it like the old
Python MRO (left-to-right, depth-first)? Is it like the new Python MRO
[1] (left-to-right, depth-first, but discard all but the last occurrence
of duplicates)?
The latter. See also the test
Craig (via RT) wrote:
Downloaded revision 8443 of Parrot to Windows XP Pro using SVN. When using
'nmake' 7.10.3077, some of the test are failing. According to the
gettingstarted.pod, none of the tests should fail.
README.win32 is more specific - dynclasses are currently broken.
Thanks,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Sunday 26 June 2005 07:18, Collin Winter wrote:
My initial quick-glance at B::Deparse's documentation mentions
something about perl optimising certain constants away, which could
well throw a spanner into the works. Storable uses B::Deparse
To me it is a trivial case that you want to provide a fake attribute
which for all intents and purposes behaves exactly like there was a real
attribute there, backing against another attribute.
A Date object is a classic example of this; you want to provide 0-based
and 1-based attributes, which
Joshua Juran wrote:
scalar
number (possibly complex)
real
rational
integer
Integer
BigInt
Ratio
Float
Complex
Quaternion
String
...
Trying to fit every problem
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 10:25:51AM +0200, Tels wrote:
After tinkering with B::Deparse for a bit, I think this particular
oddity may just be a result of poorly-written docs (or, more
probably, poorly-read on my part). The module seems to do the right
thing in all cases I could come up with
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 01:18:42AM -0400, Collin Winter wrote:
With this matter sorted, I've started on the code
and requisite tests to make the new stuff work.
Ok, let me know when you have something.
--
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern
Reality is
Tels wrote :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Sunday 26 June 2005 07:18, Collin Winter wrote:
[...]
After tinkering with B::Deparse for a bit, I think this particular
oddity may just be a result of poorly-written docs (or, more
probably, poorly-read on my part). The module seems
Hi,
I'm wondering, if it's possible with Perl 6 or not?
class MyClass {
method mymethod($par) {
say mymethod called!;
}
}
class ExClass is MyClass {
mymethod(12);
}
# pugs myprog
mymethod called!
I would like to use mymethod to add ExClass some
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:06:47PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
What it *shouldn't* do is what Test.pm does, namely execute the
code ref and compare the values returned. It would just compare
the refernces.
Why should it not do that? Is this because of subs with side effects?
Isn't
You have 3 situations
1 the refs came from \somefunc
2 the refs come from evaling strings of code
3 the refs are closures and therefore have some data associated with them
For 3, it looks like B::Deparse does't handle the data at all so even
if the deparsed subs are identical they may behave
David Landgren writes:
Michael Schwern wrote at the beginning of this thread:
What it *shouldn't* do is what Test.pm does, namely execute the
code ref and compare the values returned. It would just compare
the refernces.
Why should it not do that? Is this because of subs with side
On 6/26/05, Fergal Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have 3 situations
1 the refs came from \somefunc
2 the refs come from evaling strings of code
3 the refs are closures and therefore have some data associated with them
For 3, it looks like B::Deparse does't handle the data at all so
BÁRTHÁZI András [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I'm wondering, if it's possible with Perl 6 or not?
class MyClass {
method mymethod($par) {
say mymethod called!;
}
}
class ExClass is MyClass {
mymethod(12);
}
# pugs myprog
mymethod called!
I
Hi!
I'm trying to answering my questions. Still interested in some official
answer. :)
--- 8 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 ---
class MyMethod {
method fun1() {
fun2();
}
method fun2() {
say fun2!;
}
}
class Child is MyMethod {
}
Child.fun1();
--- 8 ---
BÁRTHÁZI András skribis 2005-06-26 19:35 (+0200):
method fun1() { fun2(); }
method fun2() { say fun2!; }
*** No compatible subroutine found: fun2
fun2 is a method, not a sub. You need method syntax to call it:
./fun2;
class MyMethod { method fun1() { fun2(); } sub fun2() { say
Hi,
method fun1() { fun2(); }
method fun2() { say fun2!; }
*** No compatible subroutine found: fun2
fun2 is a method, not a sub. You need method syntax to call it:
./fun2;
Hmm. It really works. :) I'm getting the idea, what's the difference
between methods and subs. Anyway, my
BÁRTHÁZI András skribis 2005-06-26 20:07 (+0200):
Hmm. It really works. :) I'm getting the idea, what's the difference
between methods and subs. Anyway, my implementation is, that ./ means
self's method - and the class is not an instance, so it has no self.
The invocant can be a class too.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
1 the refs came from \somefunc
2 the refs come from evaling strings of code
3 the refs are closures and therefore have some data associated with them
For 3, it looks like B::Deparse does't handle the data at all so even
if the
Sam Vilain wrote:
To me it is a trivial case that you want to provide a fake attribute
which for all intents and purposes behaves exactly like there was a real
attribute there, backing against another attribute.
A Date object is a classic example of this; you want to provide 0-based
and 1-based
Piers Cawley wrote:
For myself, I'd like to see AUTOLOAD with a signature along the lines of:
sub AUTOLOAD (Symbol $sym, ArgumentCollection $args, Continuation $cc)
returns (Code | Pair)
{
...
}
This presupposes a deal of support infrastructure, but also provides
flexibility.
I just went to go patch in the code ref stuff to is_deeply() and found that
I had unfinished changes to the diagnostic output. Remember, it was about
including the description in the failure diagnostics. So instead of this:
/Users/schwern/tmp/test...NOK 1
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:41:30AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
I'm not sure there is a right way to deparse closures (in general).
For example if a variable is shared between 2 closures then it only
makes sense to deparse both of them together. Deparsing them in turn
will lose the sharedness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another way to look at the eval case is to apply it to other references.
is_deeply( eval { foo = 42, bar = 23 },
{ bar, 42, foo, 23 } );
Even though the code is written differently the resulting data is the same.
Would anyone be in doubt
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:36:13AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another way to look at the eval case is to apply it to other references.
is_deeply( eval { foo = 42, bar = 23 },
{ bar, 42, foo, 23 } );
Even though the code is written differently the resulting data is
On 6/26/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we've got this my $var is Proxy( ... ) construct in A06.
Say you've got this class:
class MagicVal {
has Int $.varies is rw;
method varies returns Int is rw {
return my $var is Proxy ( :for($.varies),
27 matches
Mail list logo
