It appears that when Pike is presented with a comparison like:
a=b
And given the availability of ` and `= and `== operators, it insists
on using ` first, and if that fails it uses `==.
Instead of using merely `= directly.
Am I missing something here or is that a missed optimisation?
--
Xenofarm seems to have been out of order since a while, correct?
--
Stephen.
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
Martin Nilsson (Opera Mini - AFK!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
3.2.0-67
You're talking about:
Doing tests in tlib/modules/SSL.pmod/testsuite (241 tests, pid 19094)
test 16, line 244
No result from subprocess (died of signal SIGTERM)
I think no `= lfun exists. There is a manual page at
http://pike.lysator.liu.se/generated/manual/modref/ex/lfun_3A_3A.html
which lists all of them.
On 08/27/14 09:47, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
It appears that when Pike is presented with a comparison like:
a=b
And given the
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
I notice that some methods of String.Buffer use rawtypes, others don't.
When is a rawtype helpful and/or necessary?
Case in point:
/*! @decl Buffer `+( string|Buffer what )
*/
PIKEFUN Buffer `+( string|Buffer what )
rawtype tFunc(tOr(tString,
Arne Goedeke wrote:
I think no `= lfun exists. There is a manual page at
http://pike.lysator.liu.se/generated/manual/modref/ex/lfun_3A_3A.html
which lists all of them.
Ok, fair enough. It is confusing though that this list is present twice.
There undoubtedly is a good reason for that, but it
On the topic of lfuns:
- Would an lfun of `[..]= be feasible and/or (un)desirable?
- There obviously is no `= lfun. Is that technically challenging or
hasn't there simply been no need to make it possible?
I can imagine both operators to be useful in the context of String.Buffer:
- `[..]= could
Its not the same list; one describes the functions which implement the
operators and the other ones are lfuns. They are related in that the
ones from predef:: will call the corresponding lfun. In the
documentation you linked, a cross reference exists.
Maybe the overall structure is not so clear
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Stephen R. van den Berg s...@cuci.nl wrote:
- There obviously is no `= lfun. Is that technically challenging or
hasn't there simply been no need to make it possible?
Don't like this idea! When you assign to a name, it should always
rebind. Imagine:
mixed foo
