Hi again,
I've tried this patch again and fixed only one minor detail, here's
the log of what i did:
$ rm -rf t/
$ make realclean
$ svn up
(...)
Updated to revision 14291.
$ perl Configure.pl
$ make
$ make test 2>&1 | tee BEFORE_PATCH
[apply patch]
$ svn up
At revision 14291.
$ make test 2>&1
# New Ticket Created by Amir E. Aharoni
# Please include the string: [perl #40207]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=40207 >
A tiny cage-cleaning patch.
AFFECTED FILE: tools/dev/install_files.pl
FIX: replaced
Parrot Bug Summary
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/NoAuth/parrot/Overview.html
Generated at Mon Aug 21 13:15:03 2006 GMT
---
* Numbers
* New Issues
* Overview of Open Issues
* Ticket Status By Version
* Requestors with m
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #40209]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=40209 >
Running these tests in PIR instead of perl will give us a speedup
during 'make test', a
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #40210]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=40210 >
While the primary use of dump is for immediate debug output (and
therefore puts is ok),
So ambs has been making a lot of source changes as suggested by
t/distro/linelength.t. (And making them very well, I might add.) Given the
nature of Parrot code, I think a bit wider would be OK. Would anyone
currently hacking Parrot be significantly inconvenienced by having wider
lines?
BTW, th
Hi all,
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
So ambs has been making a lot of source changes as suggested by
t/distro/linelength.t. (And making them very well, I might add.) Given the
nature of Parrot code, I think a bit wider would be OK. Would anyone
currently hacking Parrot be significantly inconvenienc
The way you phrase the question, you're not going to get any of these
answers. Who is programming parrot on their *physical* VT100? =-).
The primary reason for an 80 column limit is developer convenience, I
think.
On the other hand, I think taking the preferences of the core
developers in
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 07:17:03PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Thus, I suggest that we collectively unskip all of the tests that might
> possibly pass on all platforms, tighten the skip conditions to their minimum
> necessities, use TODO instead of SKIP absolutely everywhere possible, and
> delete
Thanks, applied as r14296
In the future, please send patches relative to parrot root:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/submissions.html
This will make it easy to apply them. Thanks again!
Thanks, applied as r14297.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:48:59AM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> The way you phrase the question, you're not going to get any of these
> answers. Who is programming parrot on their *physical* VT100? =-).
> The primary reason for an 80 column limit is developer convenience, I
> think.
Well, that
Am Montag, 21. August 2006 17:45 schrieb Chip Salzenberg:
> Well, that's fair. Many of us are old enough to have used such limited
> hardware, but it's all surely been relegated to the trashheap by now. So:
> Would anyone be inconvenienced by exceeding 80 columns regularly; and, how?
80, or 100,
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 08:45 -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:48:59AM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> > The way you phrase the question, you're not going to get any of these
> > answers. Who is programming parrot on their *physical* VT100? =-).
> > The primary reason for an
On 8/21/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My preference: soft limit 80 - keep lines shorter, if it's easy
hard limit ~100 - you SHALL not exceed it
coding standards are quite helpful, but cannot be applied absolutely.
there are good reasons why a line of code might
jerry gay wrote:
> On 8/21/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My preference: soft limit 80 - keep lines shorter, if it's easy
>>hard limit ~100 - you SHALL not exceed it
>>
> coding standards are quite helpful, but cannot be applied absolutely.
> there are good reas
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> 80, or 100, or 132 are all some arbitrary limits. But the latter is already
> inconvenient on a 12" powermac with reasonable font size [1].
That's an interesting and modern metric: minimum common screen size divided
by minimum rea
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:05:08PM -0400, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> Don't forget that some programs, like mailers, wrap at 80 characters.
I don't know of any mailer that is hard-coded at any given column width.
Do you?
--
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:05:08PM -0400, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
>> Don't forget that some programs, like mailers, wrap at 80 characters.
>
> I don't know of any mailer that is hard-coded at any given column width.
> Do you?
Thunderbird, Evolution, just to name two. OK
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Am Montag, 21. August 2006 17:45 schrieb Chip Salzenberg:
> > Well, that's fair. ?Many of us are old enough to have used such limited
> > hardware, but it's all surely been relegated to the trashheap by now. ?So:
> > Would anyone be
From: Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:07:16 -0700
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> 80, or 100, or 132 are all some arbitrary limits. But the latter is
already
> inconvenient on a 12" powermac with reasonable font size
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:49:20PM -0400, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:05:08PM -0400, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> >> Don't forget that some programs, like mailers, wrap at 80 characters.
> >
> > I don't know of any mailer that is hard-coded at a
> "CS" == Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CS> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> 80, or 100, or 132 are all some arbitrary limits. But the latter is
already
>> inconvenient on a 12" powermac with reasonable font size [1].
CS> That's an in
23 matches
Mail list logo
