It seems that PIR uses only one name space of identifiers.
$ cat const.pir
.const int cst = 42
.sub 'cst'
print cst
.end
$ parrot const.pir
error:imcc:undefined identifier 'cst'
in file 'const.pir' line 5
$ cat label.pir
.const int L1 = 42
.sub 'main'
print L1
goto L1
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
This must make the following syntax rule illegal:
target = null
because if null is declared as a .local, you can't know whether you want
to nullify target, or want to set target's value to that of the .local
variable null.
I take it this is no problem; just stick to
Howdy,
The test suite is considered official as in everything that passes
the (completed) test suite may name itself Perl 6, and nearly all of
these files 'use Test'; However we don't ship an official Test.pm, nor
do we define which test functions it should contain and export by
default, nor
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
This must make the following syntax rule illegal:
target = null
because if null is declared as a .local, you can't know whether you want
to nullify target, or want to set target's value to
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
So, preferably, the special words in PIR will be allowed as identifiers
('if','unless', 'null') and PIR will DWIM. What about the type identifiers:
int, num, pmc, string; should these be allowed as identifiers? The currently
special PIR words such as if, unless, null are
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
So, preferably, the special words in PIR will be allowed as identifiers
('if','unless', 'null') and PIR will DWIM. What about the type
identifiers:
int, num, pmc, string; should these be allowed
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Simmons
# Please include the string: [perl #58500]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58500
With revision 30669, I find the following behavior of round()
sully:perl6
# New Ticket Created by Stephane Payrard
# Please include the string: [perl #58488]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58488
One can crash calling rakudo on a file containing
eval 'class A { has $.a};
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:10:39PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
The test suite is considered official as in everything that passes
the (completed) test suite may name itself Perl 6, and nearly all of
these files 'use Test'; However we don't ship an official Test.pm, nor
do we define which test
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Weeks
# Please include the string: [perl #58506]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58506
The attached pir file tries to call a sub set :outer() another sub
without calling
Stephen Simmons (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Simmons
# Please include the string: [perl #58500]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58500
With revision 30669, I find the following
On Wed Aug 27 22:49:37 2008, cotto wrote:
Most of these test wouldn't throw an exception anyway, since assigning
to a positive out-of-bounds element simply resizes the array. (This
excludes nonsensically large positive indicies, which should probably
tested for.) I added exception handling
Attached is a new patch for the cygwin070patches. This is against svn,
so it replaces the patches _6 and _7.
Fixed some logical flaw and enhanced the Makefiles.
Renamed TMP to HLLNAME.
--
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/ http://murbreak.at/
cygwin070patches_8.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:10:39PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
And then? Spec it? Or ship a prototype Test.pm as official?
I think it's good to have a prototype Test.pm that we can point to as
a reference, but I don't think we need to try to designate it as being
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:32:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I think it's good to have a prototype Test.pm that we can point to as
a reference, but I don't think we need to try to designate it as being
official.
[...]
2. The Perl 6 language spec itself would
2. The Perl 6 language spec itself would specify a basic set of test
routines built-in to the language, in a Test namespace
That sounds like a good idea, but it would require that the above Test
functionality be included in the automated tests... which runs the
risk of infinite recursion.
I don't get a segfault when running the test case without the 'end'
opcode. Can anyone else confirm if this still segfaults?
cet.pir
Description: Binary data
# New Ticket Created by Carl Mäsak
# Please include the string: [perl #58524]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58524
r30698:
./perl6 -e 'say $*IN.readline' # works (i.e. repeats what I write)
OH HAI!
OH
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:28:36PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Has the err operator, as a low-precidence version of //, been removed?
Yes.
It could be recycled as a fuzzy Boolean, returning a fractional value
between +1 and -1, indicating the confidence with which the result is
offerred.
# New Ticket Created by Carl Mäsak
# Please include the string: [perl #58526]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=58526
r30698:
$ ./perl6 -e 'say [1,2,3,4,5,6].pick(*)' # expected
645213
$ ./perl6 -e 'say
I think you're thinking of the erm operator...
But back to orelse - is the only difference between and/or and
andthen/orelse the fact that the result of the lhs gets passed as
a parameter into the rhs? 'Cause I don't see the difference between
short circuit and proceed on success/failure.
On
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 07:56:33PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I think you're thinking of the erm operator...
:
: But back to orelse - is the only difference between and/or and
: andthen/orelse the fact that the result of the lhs gets passed as
: a parameter into the rhs? 'Cause I don't see the
From: Stephen Weeks (via RT) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:21:49 -0700
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Weeks
# Please include the string: [perl #58506]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL:
From: Bob Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:55:54 -0400
. . . I suspect this faked call is what's causing the too few
arguments error (though none of my naive attempts to fix it worked).
If this case is not covered by the test suite (I'm running an
experiment now
24 matches
Mail list logo
