On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:49:32AM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: That's what I'll eventually be getting to. But in order to design
: those methods well, we need to know what tasks we need to accomplish.
: What's even more important, I think, is the storage slots for the
: necessary information. Wh
Will Coleda wrote:
Why the change to array.pir here? How was the original way broken?
- push_eh catch
+ push_eh bad_args
subcommand_proc = find_global "_Tcl\0builtins\0array",
subcommand_name
-resume:
clear_eh
1) The catch branched to resume, which branched to bad_args (not an
Why the change to array.pir here? How was the original way broken?
On Sep 9, 2005, at 10:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: leo
Date: Fri Sep 9 07:08:21 2005
New Revision: 9165
Modified:
branches/leo-ctx5/languages/tcl/lib/commands/array.pir
branches/leo-ctx5/src/inter_call.c
Log:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:19:43PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2005, at 18:59, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> >
> >Would it make sense if it returned 0 rather than -1 on "not found"?
> >The implementation can never return a reference count of 0, because
> >keys
> >are automatically de
Switching to Integer doesn't help unless you have a bigint lib, at
least on my box:
The first 15 factorials are:
1
2
6
24
120
720
5040
40320
362880
3628800
39916800
479001600
no bigint lib loaded
current instr.: '(null)' pc 16 ((unknown file):-1)
To address the other point, I'll reorganize the
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chromatic wrote:
>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> In a recent discussion with Chip and Leo, the idea came up to ask for a
> >> list of very specific TODO items -- specifically things that shoul
Alberto Simões <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The previous crashing test is now passing:
> t/examples/japhok
> 1/15 unexpectedly succeeded
I have fixed one of the JAPHs in Braga ;-) Anyway a lot of these JAPHs
depend on a specific opcode enumeration, which changed some tim
Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See this thread, especially message 16 (and then 13,14,15 :)
> http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.internals/browse_frm/thread/678fbfc5a14813b5
> How close is Parrot to supporting that functionality now?
>From a technical POV namespaces are working in
Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Di 19. Okt 2004, 19:49:44]:
>> Is it the intended operation of the 'factorial' program on the Parrot
>> examples page to
>> truncate the results? Looks like a bug to me...
> I have checked the factorial example on
> ht
I would agree. I don't expect "make" to touch anything outside of the
local sandbox...
As for tying it to install/uninstall... I would lean towards not
using those targets, or at least not running them when running the
top level targets of the same name.
On Sep 8, 2005, at 11:20 PM, Josh
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chromatic wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In a recent discussion with Chip and Leo, the idea came up to ask for a
>> list of very specific TODO items -- specifically things that should work
>> but don't.
> It should be possible to Configure
Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For splitting on regular expressions, PGE can then provide its own
> split method or function
^^
Sic. C shouldn't be an opcode at all. It's a library function or
more specifically a method inside some namespace. E.g.
String.split
Ru
Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My confusion is in the correct way of running the 'clean' target to
> clean ./editor. Most of the 'clean' targets in the root Makefile do not
> invoke make recursively.
We are building 'all' recursively. This implies that all subdirectory
Makefile shou
Nattfodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> today is the deadline for the google summer of code projects, and it's
> time anyway for a "release" of GMC.
[ two additional remarks, rest sent in PM ]
1) docs
Some recent changes, like reversing the scavenge direction isn't yet
synced to documentati
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ sorry for the delayed answer ]
> I've looked over over the diffs between trunk and leo-ctx5, and here
> are my notes.
>{{ OVERALL }}
> A significant improvement. Good work, y'all.
Thanks.
>{{ USER-VISIBLE }}
> * optional parameter interface: ":op
# New Ticket Created by François PERRAD
# Please include the string: [perl #37116]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37116 >
t/pmc/timer.t contains the remainder failure on Win32 with MinGW :
$ perl t/harness
# New Ticket Created by Joshua Hoblitt
# Please include the string: [perl #37115]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37115 >
Parrot's top level requirements and perhaps it's 1st-order derived
requirements need
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 12:12:18PM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
> 't/doc/pod.t' also make a lot of sense. However could you comment on the
> relation to t/perl/Parrot_Docs.t ? It looks like it checks the same
> things as 'pod.t'.
> I wonder whether it is worthwile to maintain Parrot::D
The previous crashing test is now passing:
t/examples/japhok
1/15 unexpectedly succeeded
These are failing, but seem to be expected as they are not counted as
failed.
t/p6rules/ws...ok 15/21# Failed (TODO) test
(lib/Parrot/Test/PGE.pm at line 73
19 matches
Mail list logo
