HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
inelegant:
if ($condition) { pre }
unconditional midsection;
if ($condition) { post }
I'm not sure if you would considered closure traits as equally
inelegant but what are PRE
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 14:47:33 -0400, Austin Frank wrote:
Would the named adverbs for gather work in other contexts as well?
Would you suggest this mechanism for specifying the buffering
behavior for IO operations?
See scook's email below... I think that yes. Here is a reference
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 21:09:09 +0200, Juerd wrote:
Mark Reed skribis 2005-09-20 14:31 (-0400):
This has so little redundancy that it makes very little sense to want to
avoid repeating that very short encode_entities($item-label).
The fine line is when the midsection is slightly more than
David Landgren wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
[...]
The cpants analysis fails to recognise this as valid. What is it
looking for and/or could it be taught to look for this? I thought
that it was only looking for a string eval of use Test::Pod.
It does, but the qq{} you're using isn't
I'm pretty sure all the stuff i added (plus more) is now there thanks
to someone else. They may have started from my code, they may not
have. Haven't really looked at the project since.
Peter
On 21/09/2005, at 2:20 PM, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue May 06 06:39:11
demerphq wrote:
On 9/15/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage = 80% ...
I have to wonder about how you handle modules that have code that is
Perl version
David Cantrell wrote:
demerphq wrote:
On 9/15/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage = 80% ...
I have to wonder about how you handle modules that have code
Joshua Hoblitt via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[jhoblitt - Mon Sep 19 22:28:00 2005]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Sep 22 07:13:56 2002]:
The point of having a validifiable magic number at the start
of a bytecode file is to avoid this sort of thing:
% ../../parrot -j mops.pasm
Hi,
Since my last post about pbc_merge, I've also checked in some tests plus
hunted down and fixed a problem that prevented the tool from working in the
leo-ctx5 branch. I think this ticket can now be closed (I don't have RT
privs to do stuff like this).
Thanks,
Jonathan
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
FORMAT PROPOSAL...
Great! Anything that brings parrot closer to being able to report the
HLL filename and line numbers is a good thing!
SOURCE SEGMENTS
... the idea would seem to be
that this segment can contain source code. I suspect the intention of it
was
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:51:53PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: If we go with these changes, this functionality (starting place for a
: search) would be available by using
:
: Foo::Bar$symbol_to_lookup; # right?
Presumably, though Foo::Bar differs from
simon:
If you're going to check the magic after the wordsize and bytecode, you
might as well get rid of it altogether.
...
Jonathan:
...Change the packfile format, or code around the current way
If you do tweak the signature for the packfile format, I suggest you
take a leaf out of the PNG
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:58:36AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
To me, this is a mark of Quality. It would be good to have it as a
Kwalitee metric, but I see no easy way. The simplest way I can see would
be to have a META.yml key that contains a URI to the HTML D::C report. I
would
HaloO Yuval,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
What is the implication of from the perspective of the person using
Object, Num and Str?
Do they have
Selon Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:58:36AM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
To me, this is a mark of Quality. It would be good to have it as a
Kwalitee metric, but I see no easy way. The simplest way I can see would
be to have a META.yml key that
On 2005-09-21 03:53, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 21:09:09 +0200, Juerd wrote:
Mark Reed skribis 2005-09-20 14:31 (-0400):
This has so little redundancy that it makes very little sense to want to
avoid repeating that very short encode_entities($item-label).
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:16:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/
p6_role_model.jpg
I am planning on making Roles self-bootstrapping, so the class(Role)
will actually be the first Role in the system. From there, Class will
do
On 9/21/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
taken, but they are
Every time I've desired a feature for Perl6 it has turned out that either
it was already planned to be there or I have been given good resons why it
would have been better not be there.
Now in Perl(5) {forum,newsgroup}s you can often see people doing stuff
like
my @files=grep !/^\.{1,2}/,
HaloO,
Nathan Gray wrote:
The order that a class does roles is significant, because if two roles
define the same method, only the first one is catalogued by the class
instance.
Ups, this contradicts the concept of class composition which in the
above case should raise an error instead of
On 9/21/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Letting aside the fact that in the 99% of times they're plainly
reinventing the wheel of glob() a.k.a. File::Glob, there are indeed
situations in which one may have stuff like
for (@foo) {
next if $_ eq 'boo';
# do something useful here
}
Hi,
quick questions:
my $pair = (a = 42);
say ~$pair; # a\t42? a\t42\n? a 42?
say +$pair; # 0 (pairs aren't numbers)?
# 42?
# 0 (a is not a number)?
# 0 (~$pair can't be used as a number)?
say ?$pair; # true (because 42 is
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 14:47 (+):
my $pair = (a = 42);
say ~$pair; # a\t42? a\t42\n? a 42?
say +$pair; # 0 (pairs aren't numbers)?
# 42?
# 0 (a is not a number)?
# 0 (~$pair can't be used as a number)?
Nathan,
On Sep 21, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Nathan Gray wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:16:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/
p6_role_model.jpg
I am planning on making Roles self-bootstrapping, so the class(Role)
will actually be the
Hi,
(sorry for the long delay.)
Juerd juerd at convolution.nl writes:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-19 14:21 (+):
\(1,2,3);# Reference to a list promoted to an array (!)
\(((1,2,3)));# same
Except that it has to be a reference to a reference, because (1,2)
demerphq wrote:
On 9/21/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I had my eyes opened by Devel::Cover. I thought I had pretty good
coverage in Regexp::Assemble. In fact I had about 60%. I lifted it up to
100% statement coverage (some branching and conditional paths are never
taken,
Ingo~
On 9/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
foo(1,2,3); # infix:, *not* called
foo (1,2,3); # same as
foo( (1,2,3) ); # infix:, called
Do you mean this to read?
foo(1,2,3); # infix:, *not* called
foo .(1,2,3);# infix:, *not* called
Hi,
Matt Fowles wrote:
On 9/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
foo(1,2,3); # infix:, *not* called
foo (1,2,3); # same as
foo( (1,2,3) ); # infix:, called
Do you mean this to read?
foo(1,2,3); # infix:, *not* called
foo .(1,2,3);#
I've just closed the ticket. Thanks.
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 17:24 (+0200):
multi prefix:\ (Item $item) {...}
multi prefix:\ (@array) {...}
multi prefix:\ (%hash) {...}
I keep forgetting. What's the rule for determining that the (Item $item)
is used, rather than (@array), when one uses \$aref?
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 11:44 +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
but I can cause a segfault from random input on x86.
--
$ ./parrot -j docs/running.pod
Segmentation fault
This is a Bad Thing and needs fixing. I'll see what I can find - I don't
even see a segfault or any other error
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:54:33 -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
Watch the attributions, please. I didn't write the above text - Juerd did.
Sorry, I must have gotten confused when I was snipping
--
() Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xEBD27418 perl hacker
/\ kung foo master: /me supports the
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 17:24 (+0200):
multi prefix:\ (Item $item) {...}
multi prefix:\ (@array) {...}
multi prefix:\ (%hash) {...}
I keep forgetting. What's the rule for determining that the (Item
$item) is used, rather than (@array),
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue May 27 19:30:39 2003]:
Currently, if you're in the debugger, and do anything that causes an
internal_exception call within the interpreter, you get a segfault.
[Backtrace snipped]
...etc
I think what's
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Oct 31 12:58:45 2003]:
An attempt to build Parrot with PIO_OS_STDIO defined (as is the case
when you're trying to build miniparrot) dies in core_ops.c with the error
message:
ops/io.ops: In function
Hey,
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify why expect pairs
to? I'm not sure i see any value in thatm, $pair.perl.say would be the best
way to output one anyway.
my $pair1 = (a = 2);
my $pari2 = (b = 3);
say $pair1 + $par2; # Error: illegal stringification of pair.?
I know
Eric skribis 2005-09-21 16:46 (-0600):
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify [...]
Oh? I would in fact expect many objects to stringify or numify to useful
values. Just like I expect an array reference to stringify as if it was
an array, I expect an HTTP header object to
On 22/09/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, is it really this simple?
class HTTP::Header is Pair {
foo {
{.key}: {.value ~~ s/\n/\n /g}
}
}
Where foo is whatever is needed to override stringification.
Something along the lines of `method
On 22/09/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think +(~$pair) makes any sense, though. It's basically the same
as +(~$pair.key). It's probably wise to avoid that $pair can be confused
for its key or value. A good alternative is hard to find, though. I tend
to prefer 1 at this moment
Eric wrote:
Hey,
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify why expect pairs
to? I'm not sure i see any value in thatm, $pair.perl.say would be the best
way to output one anyway.
my $pair1 = (a = 2);
my $pari2 = (b = 3);
say $pair1 + $par2; # Error: illegal stringification of
David Landgren wrote:
demerphq wrote:
You miss my point. Whether the code be cross-platform or cross-version,
you need to aggregate the coverage results from all the environments
your code is designed to run on.
How is this done?
41 matches
Mail list logo
