Re: [perl #34420] TODO suggestion: clean Parrot's ABI

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've marked this ticket as such in RT, but I'd like to suggest that > these TODO items become *requirements* for releases, and not "desired > goals". There's no real point in having a plan if you don't follow it, > and this could provide some direction (

Re: [perl #34416] bug

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leopold Toetsch via RT írta: >>Strange anyway. Folks reported that MinGW builds Parrot 0.1.2 ok. > What can I say? Not for me. Not for me. Maybe they did not report their > extra efforts to make it work? Yeah, seems so. Can MinGW users please come u

Re: Auto generated methods (was Re:The S29 Functions Project)

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While that's a nice feature to have in general, I feel better about > going ahead and predefining that the builtins are already members of > Num, Str, Array, Hash for the shear performance and documentation values > of it. That's exactly the plan, when it co

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Syntax proposal: >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .invocant Float b > .param pmc c > ... Alternate syntax: .sub foo multi(Integer, Float) .param pmc a .param pmc b .param pmc c I'm now more inclined towa

Re: Parrot 0.1.2 with MinGW32 (some experimets)

2005-03-14 Thread Michal Jurosz
Leopold Toetsch wrote: > The test could include C< 0? >. >> +$err_msg =~ s/\r//g; Could you please provide one patch for items like above, thanks. TortoiseCVS patch file attached. S pozdravem Michal Jurosz Index: imcc/t/imcpasm/opt1.t

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Jonathan Worthington
"Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Syntax proposal: .sub foo @MULTI .invocant Integer a .invocant Float b .param pmc c ... Alternate syntax: .sub foo multi(Integer, Float) .param pmc a .param pmc b .param pmc c I

[perl #34430] [PATCH] MRO breaks Tcl

2005-03-14 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda # Please include the string: [perl #34430] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=34430 > Can I say again that I think it's cheating that python has tests directly in t/ , so le

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 14:02 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: > Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Syntax proposal: > > >.sub foo @MULTI > > .invocant Integer a > > .invocant Float b > > .param pmc c > > ... > > Alternate syntax: > > .sub foo multi(Integer,

Namespaces

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
The archives have tons of articels regarding namespaces, mostly HLL policies and such, but little about Parrot semantics. I've started a new test file t/pmc/namespace.t that summarizes some of the current possibilities of namespace manipulation with Parrot. Please have a look at the supported s

Re: [perl #34430] [PATCH] MRO breaks Tcl

2005-03-14 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can I say again that I think it's cheating that python has tests directly in > t/ , so leo notices breakage there sooner? =-) Feel free to cheat and append tcl tests to "make test". > Attached is a patch that allows "(cd languages/tcl && make test)" to wo

Re: [perl #34420] TODO suggestion: clean Parrot's ABI

2005-03-14 Thread Dave Whipp
Matt Diephouse wrote: There's no real point in having a plan if you don't follow it, That sounds a bit naive. The benefit of a plan is primarily in the act of making it (it forces you to think about what you want to do). The secondary benefit comes when you track how actual progress deviates from

Re: [perl #34420] TODO suggestion: clean Parrot's ABI

2005-03-14 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
Dave Whipp via RT wrote: > Matt Diephouse wrote: > >>There's no real point in having a plan if you don't follow it, > > > That sounds a bit naive. The benefit of a plan is primarily in the act > of making it (it forces you to think about what you want to do). The > secondary benefit comes when

Calling PIR from a PMC

2005-03-14 Thread William Coleda
How does one call a PIR-defined sub from C? My current best guess is, to invoke the PIR sub "Tcl::Joe": PMC *invokeme; STRING *Tcl,*joe; Tcl = string_from_const_cstring(INTERP, "Tcl", 3); joe = string_from_const_cstring(INTERP, "joe", 3); invokeme = Parrot_find_global(INTER

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread Bob Rogers
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:02:30 +0100 Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Syntax proposal: >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .invocant Float b > .param pmc c > ... Alternate syntax:

Re: Calling PIR from a PMC

2005-03-14 Thread Jeff Horwitz
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, William Coleda wrote: > How does one call a PIR-defined sub from C? use the Parrot_call_sub_* API. > My current best guess is, to invoke the PIR sub "Tcl::Joe": > > PMC *invokeme; > STRING *Tcl,*joe; > Tcl = string_from_const_cstring(INTERP, "Tcl", 3); >

Re: [PROPOSAL] MMD: multi sub syntax

2005-03-14 Thread chromatic
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:38 -0500, Bob Rogers wrote: > What if one wants the first and third arguments to be the invocants? > Then the first syntax gives > >.sub foo @MULTI > .invocant Integer a > .param pmc b > .invocant String c > ... > > But it's no

Re: Calling PIR from a PMC

2005-03-14 Thread William Coleda
Jeff Horwitz wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, William Coleda wrote: How does one call a PIR-defined sub from C? use the Parrot_call_sub_* API. Ah, thank you, much better. Now, given the perldoc for src/extend.c, "void* Parrot_call_sub(Parrot_INTERP interpreter, Parrot_PMC sub, const cha