Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-27 14:26, Will Coleda wrote: Part of framing the question in the first place is reducing the problem code to as small a subset as possible that still exhibits the problem. AND THEY ALWAYS WORK! ! No reporting that back to the developers. Often, in the course of

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

Part of framing the question in the first place is reducing the problem code to as small a subset as possible that still exhibits the problem. Often, in the course of doing this "golfing", you'll uncover the problem yourself. On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:59 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: >

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-27 13:38, Veesh Goldman wrote: well, like I said before, if you just show ALL of your code, then we'd be able to know what happened. I fixed the mistake I made, which also fixed the wrong output from "say", so all is working now and I doubt the issue would reproduce. The code

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

well, like I said before, if you just show ALL of your code, then we'd be able to know what happened. On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 8:55 PM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-us...@perl.org> wrote: > On 2020-05-27 07:27, Brad Gilbert wrote: > > The point was that ｢say｣ will print undefined values

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-27 07:27, Brad Gilbert wrote: The point was that ｢say｣ will print undefined values without complaining. Really debug statements should be more like: $*STDERR.put: ｢%CommandLine = ｣, %CommandLine; Or more succinctly: dd %CommandLine; Which does bring to the forefront,

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-26 23:39, Peter Pentchev wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:16:54PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: On 2020-05-25 23:42, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: HI All, I am missing something here: 154:   # figure out the label 155:   say %CommandLine; 156:   if

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

The point was that ｢say｣ will print undefined values without complaining. Really debug statements should be more like: $*STDERR.put: ｢%CommandLine = ｣, %CommandLine; Or more succinctly: dd %CommandLine; On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:39 AM Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:16:54PM -0700, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: > On 2020-05-25 23:42, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: > > HI All, > > > > I am missing something here: > > > > > > 154:   # figure out the label > > 155:   say %CommandLine; > > 156:   if

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-26 19:16, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: On 2020-05-25 23:42, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: HI All, I am missing something here: 154:   # figure out the label 155:   say %CommandLine; 156:   if "%CommandLine".starts-with( "[" )  && 157:  "%CommandLine".contains( "]"

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-25 23:42, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: HI All, I am missing something here: 154:   # figure out the label 155:   say %CommandLine; 156:   if "%CommandLine".starts-with( "[" )  && 157:  "%CommandLine".contains( "]" ) { BACKUP:\MyDocsBackup\backup1 Cannot resolve caller

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:54 PM yary > wrote: From this much 158: Cannot resolve caller index(Str:U: Str:D); none of these signatures match: "index" is being called with the 1st arg undefined, 2nd arg defined. There is no "index" multi handling

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

This is more of how I would structure it with %CommandLine { .say; # if /^ '[' .*? ']' / { if .starts-with('[') && .contains(']') { ... } } else { say 'no backup path given' } We can skip checking ｢.starts-with｣ and ｢.contains｣ if

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

>From this much 158: Cannot resolve caller index(Str:U: Str:D); none of these signatures match: "index" is being called with the 1st arg undefined, 2nd arg defined. There is no "index" multi handling the 1st undefined arg, is my guess. -y On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:41 AM ToddAndMargo via

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-26 01:40, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: On 2020-05-26 01:37, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: 155: A:\YourDocs\backup1 156: No   157: No     158: Cannot

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

On 2020-05-26 01:37, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: 155: A:\YourDocs\backup1     156: No  157: No    158: Cannot resolve caller index(Str:U: Str:D); none of these signatures

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

This is Rakudo version 2020.05.1 built on MoarVM version 2020.05 implementing Raku 6.d. It is back at it again. The second test, I sent it something with brackets in it. It is the failed test to goes wonkers I put some debugging and is seems that it does not like my `&&` 155: say

Re: I need a second pair of eyes

> On Tue, May 26, 2020, 09:45 ToddAndMargo via perl6-users > mailto:perl6-us...@perl.org>> wrote: > > HI All, > > I am missing something here: > > > 154: # figure out the label > 155: say %CommandLine; > 156: if "%CommandLine".starts-with( "["

I need a second pair of eyes

HI All, I am missing something here: 154: # figure out the label 155: say %CommandLine; 156: if "%CommandLine".starts-with( "[" ) && 157: "%CommandLine".contains( "]" ) { BACKUP:\MyDocsBackup\backup1 Cannot resolve caller index(Str:U: Str:D); none of these signatures match: