»ö« Welcome to Perl 6! | perl6.org/ | evalbot usage: 'perl6: say 3;' or rakudo:, niecza:, std:, or /msg camelia perl6: ... | irclog: irc.perl6.org | UTF-8 is our friend! Set by sorear on 25 June 2013. |
|||
00:01
ikrs left
00:12
balders_dod_ joined
00:13
balders_dod_ left
00:14
balders_dod joined
|
|||
colomon | \o/ | 00:15 | |
00:16
ikrs joined
00:21
Mouq joined
00:26
sivoais left
|
|||
[Coke] | colomon: ? | 00:27 | |
colomon | rakudo-moar added in. | ||
you must think it's getting close enough to consider.... | |||
00:27
SevenWolf left
|
|||
[Coke] | pay no attention to the man behind the mirror. | 00:29 | |
I'm just hoping to catch it when it starts. | 00:31 | ||
colomon | I apologize for not having pushed Niecza to a clean test suite. | 00:37 | |
Got sidetracked trying to figure out how to fix the :sigspace issue. | |||
00:41
jnap joined
00:42
kivutar left
00:45
jnap left
00:47
dayangkun joined,
wsri left
00:50
wsri joined
00:53
btyler joined
01:03
zakharyas left,
Ben_Goldberg joined
01:04
BenGoldberg left
01:33
SevenWolf joined
|
|||
TimToady | masak: your first two examples are missing the RHS of a => | 01:33 | |
01:35
jnap joined
01:39
dayangkun left
|
|||
lue | S03/Adverbs: "while $a < 1 && $b == 2 :carefully does the && carefully because && is of tighter precedence than "comma"." I'm not sure how the comma precedence level applies here. | 01:41 | |
01:44
rurban1 left
|
|||
lue | S03/Adverbs is kind of weird in general. TimToady, in the case of $a < 1 and $b == 2 , would an adverb after that apply to 'and' instead of '==', because 'and' would be the topmost (i.e. loosest) operator in the set? | 01:45 | |
TimToady | no, adverbs parse tighter than item asssignment | 01:48 | |
lue | I don't know, "slightly tighter than item assignment" and "applies to the topmost operator" seem like opposing statements, at least by my understanding of "topmost". What doesn't help is that unexplained mention of the comma precedence level. | ||
TimToady | probably a fossil | 01:49 | |
01:49
sivoais joined
|
|||
lue | I think I'm starting to see. But then I don't understand how replacing 'and' with '&&' stops applying to ==, since == is still tighter than &&. Or is that thanks to topmost meaning "loosest operator tighter than item assignment" | 01:50 | |
Hang on. Using the precedence table at the top of S03, could I start from just above item assignment, and just keep going up the list (wrapping around if necessary), and use the first operator precedence that occurs after either ( or the start of the statement? | 01:52 | ||
01:55
MikeFair left
01:56
MikeFair joined
|
|||
TimToady | it's no different from how any other infix at a given precedence is parsed, except there's no right-hand argument, and no infix :) | 01:56 | |
lue | *rightmost op of the first op. precedence that is found after either in the statement or paren group, going through the levels like that, to be clear | ||
colomon | r: say (0x28010, 0x28011, 0x28012).chrs.ords | ||
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«55392 56336 55392 56337 55392 56338» | ||
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«163856 163857 163858» | |||
colomon | bad rakudo jvm | 01:57 | |
lue | TimToady: OK, so is that talk of "topmost op, i.e. last-used" wrong? Because that would seemingly prefer looser over tighter. | ||
TimToady | no different from an infix, which pays attention to the loosest thing to the left, but only up to a point | 01:58 | |
that's how operator precedence works | |||
lue | So I'll just mentally substitute :adverb with something like ö <INVISIBLE RHS> and work through example expression that way :) | 01:59 | |
lue will replace the S03/Adverbs section once he's reassured his understanding. It reads like an oooold piece of writing. | 02:00 | ||
colomon | …. seems like .ords could be fixed in jvm? | 02:02 | |
lue | colomon: yeah it does :) Stupid Java strings... | 02:03 | |
02:04
thou joined
|
|||
lue | TimToady: I'll also assume that adverbs don't even try to apply to terms, or alternatively try to apply to them but move on to the next token if they can't. | 02:10 | |
Also, N Terms 42 3.14 "eek" qq["foo"] $x :!verbose @$array . That adverb's not supposed to be there, is it? Or are they just that weird? | |||
TimToady | that is not an adverb | 02:11 | |
adverbs occur only in infix position | 02:12 | ||
lue | Ah, so calling it an adverb in foo(:!verbose) is erroneous then. Only 1 + 2 :adv and q:adv are adverbs then. | 02:15 | |
diakopter | infix? I thought postfix | ||
lue | diakopter: infix position because preceding whitespace is OK. | 02:16 | |
(OK for adverbs, I mean) | |||
diakopter | oh | ||
btyler | anyone else gotten to hello world using rakudo on moar? I noticed that rakudo's Configure.pl has entries for it, but things die in stage0, saying that the moar executable can't find libmoar, so maybe I'm adopting a little too early :) | 02:19 | |
doing --backends=moar --gen-moar | 02:20 | ||
lue | Just to clarify, 1 + 2 :adv -> adverb, q:adv// -> adverb, foo(:adv) -> named param, !adverb, and adverbs skip over terms, like 2 in the 1 + 2 :adv case. | 02:22 | |
diakopter | r: say :1<111> | ||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/IyXwfD53UaRadix 1 out of range (allowed: 2..36)at /tmp/IyXwfD53Ua:1------> say :1<111>⏏<EOL>» | ||
..rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/tWcRroqwW2Radix 1 out of range (allowed: 2..36)at /tmp/tWcRroqwW2:1------> say :1<111>⏏<EOL>» | |||
diakopter | r-j: say :2<0> | 02:23 | |
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«0» | ||
diakopter | why can't there be unary | ||
:1<0> is zero, :1<00> is one, :2<000> is two.. | |||
lue | diakopter: :1<0> would be one, methinks. | 02:24 | |
diakopter | but you need a zero.. | ||
lue | :1<> == 0 :) | ||
benabik | I've usually seen Unary spelled 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, 11111111. | ||
lue thinks there's a reason P6 doesn't support unary :P | 02:25 | ||
diakopter | benabik: which is zero | ||
lue | benabik: that may be, but math say the first digit of any number system is 0 . | ||
r: say "000".chars # hey look, unary! | |||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de, rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«3» | 02:26 | |
benabik | lue++ | ||
[Coke] | btyler: I'm currently getting a segfault building nqp-moar. | ||
btyler | [Coke]: ah, ok | 02:27 | |
[Coke] | jnthn++ had it working to the point of hello world in the past few days | ||
diakopter | r: my \Fault := Failure; | 02:28 | |
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«Unhandled exception: Cannot look up attributes in a type object in sink (gen/jvm/CORE.setting) in MAIN (gen/jvm/main.nqp:47) in (gen/jvm/main.nqp:41) in (gen/jvm/main.nqp)» | ||
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«Cannot look up attributes in a type objectcurrent instr.: 'sink' pc 442380 (src/gen/p-CORE.setting.pir:183502) (gen/parrot/CORE.setting:12028)called from Sub 'MAIN' pc 379 (src/gen/perl6.pir:140) (gen/parrot/main.nqp:46)called from Sub '' pc 317…» | |||
[Coke] | maybe it's just working on windows, though. Iunno | ||
lue | I segfault after a couple State Vars NYI lines, during setting. | ||
nvm, during Test.pm | |||
02:29
thou left
02:30
thou joined
|
|||
diakopter | well, once the segfaults stop happening, there'll be no segfaults... ;) | 02:30 | |
benabik | Awh. Fallbacks don't participate in MRO. And here I thought I had a "clever" idea: Any.^add_fallback(-> $, $ {True}, -> $, $ { -> *@, *% {} }) # no more method not found errors. | 02:34 | |
colomon | hmmm, is there a slick way of running through a list and combining certain neighboring elements? | 02:41 | |
oh, hey, better solution anyway. :) | 02:42 | ||
02:45
rurban1 joined
02:49
rurban1 left
02:58
jnap left
03:03
grep0r left
03:16
grep0r joined
03:27
rewm left
|
|||
colomon | btw, PDF::Grammar has failed the last two nights in the smoke test. | 03:28 | |
03:29
jnap joined,
grep0r left
03:32
grep0r joined
03:34
jnap left
03:44
rurban1 joined
|
|||
colomon | huh, second issue in a night where I want to run through a list and combine certain neighboring pairs. | 03:47 | |
03:49
rurban1 left
03:50
raiph left
03:51
raiph joined
03:53
rurban1 joined
04:05
ssutch joined
04:18
preflex left
04:19
preflex_ joined,
ChanServ sets mode: +v preflex_,
preflex_ is now known as preflex
|
|||
lue | TimToady: would it be right to describe adverbs as skipping tokens it that can't be given an adverb? I ask because some things at Term precedence, like foo(), can take an adverb, while other things at the level, such as "string", can't. | 04:22 | |
s:2nd/it// | |||
04:24
rewm joined
|
|||
[Coke] | r: say "what" :the | 04:25 | |
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/W1ZbcBSdWSYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/W1ZbcBSdWS:1------> say "what" :the⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | ||
..rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/Uip7_P30gDYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/Uip7_P30gD:1------> say "what" :the⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | |||
lue | r: say 1 + 2 :adv | 04:27 | |
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«Unexpected named parameter 'adv' passed in block at /tmp/GU_DbS5ljS:1 in any eval at gen/jvm/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1086 in any evalfiles at gen/jvm/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1292 in any command_eval at gen/jvm/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1196 in any command_…» | ||
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«Unexpected named parameter 'adv' passed in sub infix:<+> at gen/parrot/CORE.setting:3922 in block at /tmp/MrOuqE2VGV:1 in any at /tmp/MrOuqE2VGV:1 in any at gen/parrot/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1146 in any eval at gen/parrot/stage2/NQPHLL.…» | |||
lue | r: say 2 :adv | ||
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/jYqk7yxlpTYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/jYqk7yxlpT:1------> say 2 :adv⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | ||
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/59_1KjgAkhYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/59_1KjgAkh:1------> say 2 :adv⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | |||
lue wonders which term the error triggers on: the 2 or the 'say' | 04:28 | ||
04:29
rewm left
04:30
jnap joined
|
|||
lue | std: 1 && 2 :adv | 04:31 | |
camelia | std 3b262af: OUTPUT«ok 00:01 123m» | ||
lue | std: 1 and 2 :adv | ||
camelia | std 3b262af: OUTPUT«ok 00:01 123m» | ||
lue | rn: 1 and 2 :adv | ||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/lvwI95zYFlYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/lvwI95zYFl:1------> 1 and 2 :adv⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | ||
..rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/OyCeYOG5O_You can't adverb thatat /tmp/OyCeYOG5O_:1------> 1 and 2 :adv⏏<EOL> expecting any of: pair value» | |||
..niecza v24-108-g17d73e4: OUTPUT«(timeout)[auto-compiling setting]» | |||
04:34
jnap left
|
|||
lue | Not being able to apply an adverb to things below the Adverb pseudo-level is a bug, right? Or is it? | 04:34 | |
benabik | I think that it's syntactically fine, but semantically bad. I think Rakudo adverbs by passing it as a named parameter, and you can't pass things to 2. | 04:36 | |
lue | I think I'm starting to see how to mentally parse adverbs now though. I'm imagining that operators turn itself and its terms into a weird... thing that can accept adverbs if given. Since 'and' is below the adverb level, it doesn't get a chance to form this object before adverbs happen. | 04:38 | |
Grrr. I'm sorely missing a well-written S03/Adverbs. I'm afraid I'll end up having to leave operators out of my Adverbs post, simply because I can't explain it myself :( | 04:41 | ||
Or perhaps it's a rakudo that's not working exactly right on the subject that's messing me up :/ | 04:42 | ||
r: 1 == 2 :adv; # case in point | 04:43 | ||
camelia | rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/EOqManUWpnYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/EOqManUWpn:1------> 1 == 2 :adv⏏; # case in point expecting any of: pair value» | ||
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/aefBrHPmTxYou can't adverb thatat /tmp/aefBrHPmTx:1------> 1 == 2 :adv⏏; # case in point expecting any of: pair value» | |||
benabik | Hm... It throws that error when attempting to attach an adverb to something that isn't a call or callmethod. | 04:46 | |
I'm guessing that's a parse error on Rakudo's part, attaching :adv to the 2, where you're expecting it to be on the == | 04:47 | ||
lue is tempted to say that adverbs should be turned into a proper metaop or something (==:adv ?), because absolutely none of this helps his understanding of how opadvs work. | 04:48 | ||
benabik | Operator adverbs are named parameters to the infix:<> sub, supplied postfix to the operator itself. | 04:49 | |
OR at least that's what Rakudo is doing when it parses it correctly. | |||
lue | .oO(You must correctly identify what operator the given adverb attaches to in various complex expressions. All you have to figure this out is an outdated S03/Adverbs and a buggy Rakudo.) |
||
benabik: my issue comes with being able to figure out 1) which operator the adverb applies to in complex expressions (i.e. more than 1 operator), and a related 2) where to put an adverb so that it goes to the right operator. | 04:50 | ||
benabik | lue: Picture parens from the beginning of the expression to just before the adverb. It applies to whatever operator happens last in there. | 04:51 | |
That's way too loose an explination. | |||
lue | :) | 04:52 | |
benabik | Works as long as there's no operator with lower precidence. | ||
lue | like 'and' ? | ||
04:52
sizz_ joined
|
|||
benabik | Yes. Anything in the list after adverbs. | 04:52 | |
I think Adverbs is at the wrong indent level in S03's TOC. | 04:53 | ||
lue | perhaps a little bit :) | ||
04:53
sizz left
|
|||
benabik | It's a precedence level, not the start of a new section. | 04:53 | |
lue | so C<1 && 2 || 3 :adv> applies to the &&, and C<1 and 2 || 3 :adv> applies to who knows under the () visualization, right? | 04:54 | |
benabik | Adverbs are a very loose postfix op, which is... odd. | ||
Generally postfix ops bind very tightly. | |||
lue | I think I've come to the tentative conclusion that things which modify the behavior of operators should be attached directly to the operator. If only there was an existing mechanism adverbs could utilize... | 04:55 | |
.oO(I think when I understand exactly how adverbs work with operators, I'll stop feeling an eagerness to kill it in its current form.) |
04:56 | ||
benabik | Sorting out what :adv attaches to is no different than sorting out what order the && , ||, and and work in. | ||
lue | benabik: that's what TimToady said :) . The problem is is that I'd like to play around with this, and a certain compiler has decided to be completely broken in that respect. | 04:57 | |
benabik | Unfortunitly EXPR is a very difficult rule to poke around in, otherwise I'd try to fix it. :-/ | ||
lue | And the part of the spec that I would turn to in times like this is outdated and way-too-sparse. | ||
benabik | I wonder if it would make more sense to have adverbs parse literally as a postfix operator with loose precedence. | 04:58 | |
Oh, whitespace. I see. | |||
lue | I vote that they should behave like metaops (metainfix?) . Makes it consistent with other operator-modifiers. Of course, my vote only counts if changing it is desired :) | 04:59 | |
benabik | I think the only errors in the POD are the reference to "comma" prec and the bad heading level for the section. | 05:00 | |
lue | Ideally, I'd like to at least be able to do 1 == :adv 2 , but that's apparently TTIAR . To rakudo and std | ||
05:00
rewm joined
|
|||
benabik | That would be obnoxious with long adverbs. Would lose sight of what operator is happening before getting to the second argument. | 05:01 | |
$x eqv :ok<$x is equivalent to $y+2> $y+2; # yuck | 05:02 | ||
Also, in most calls you put named arguments after positional. :-) | |||
lue | benabik: another (seeming) error: "$a < 1 && $b == 2 :carefully" should still affect ==, as == is tighter than &&, no? | ||
benabik | lue: It applies to the thing that is loosest, but not looser than item assignment. | 05:03 | |
lue | OK. That's a helpful rule. Now I'm concerned for the guy that redefines the 'or' op to be able to inclusive and exclusive or, and expects to be able to use adverbs to switch behavior :) | 05:05 | |
05:05
rewm left
|
|||
benabik | Well, you can do it for ||. :-D | 05:05 | |
lue | but this hypothetical guy moved old 'or' to 'ior'. I'm not sure what to move old '||' to :D | 05:06 | |
benabik: that helps me to explain operators for my advent post at least. (The looser part in particular explains why terms don't always take the adverb.) | 05:07 | ||
But I still contest that S03/Adverbs is poorly written for this. And yes, I've already happily volunteered to rewrite it when I understand adverbs (I will take a successful review of that part of my advent post tomorrow as proof of understanding ☺) | 05:08 | ||
benabik | Well, I didn't say it wasn't poorly written. Just that it had few factual errors. :-D | 05:09 | |
lue | :) | ||
05:10
Mouq left
|
|||
lue | In the case of 1 || 2 and 3 :adv , should the adverb apply to the ||, or throw its hands up in the air because who knows anymore with that looser-than-adverbs op in there? | 05:10 | |
benabik | ((1 || 2) and (3 :adv)) | ||
And then... `3 :adv`? WTF, mate. | 05:11 | ||
It won't "hop over" looser operators to find an operator to attach to. | |||
lue | OK. 1 and 2 || 3 :adv would become (1 and (2 || 3 :adv)), which makes sense. ...right? | ||
benabik | Right. | 05:12 | |
You can do `1 || 2 :adv and 3` | |||
std: 1 || 2 :adv and 3 | |||
camelia | std 3b262af: OUTPUT«ok 00:01 123m» | 05:13 | |
lue | I just came up with a module idea: Ofun::ParenAll --- learn operator precedence with this handy code transformer :) | ||
benabik | std: 1 || 2 :adv && 3 | ||
camelia | std 3b262af: OUTPUT«ok 00:01 123m» | ||
benabik | +1 | ||
lue | It would transform 1 and 2 || 3 into ((1) and ((2) || (3))) , for example. (perhaps spaces between parens though) | 05:14 | |
...wait. That would effectively require a reimplementation of EXPR, wouldn't it? :/ Or at least using it, and thus replicating Perl 6's specific use of EXPR. | 05:15 | ||
benabik | It might be best to try to pretty-print the AST from Perl6::Grammar instead. | 05:16 | |
05:17
carlin joined
|
|||
lue | Yeah :) . I was thinking of a learn-me("expr") function or something though. | 05:18 | |
05:18
btyler left
|
|||
benabik | No reason learn-me couldn't call Perl6::Grammar.parse(:rule<EXPR>) :-) | 05:20 | |
lue | And I assume 1 || 2 ^^ 3 :adv applies to ^^ (in case of equal level, rightmost op wins?) | ||
benabik | Erm. | ||
carlin | masak: "So hash entries (a key plus a value) really become more of a thing in Perl 6 than they every were in Perl 5." s/every/ever | ||
benabik | Which one wins is based on associativity. | 05:21 | |
lue | ( ( (1) || (2) ) ^^ (3) :adv ) is how I read that. | ||
lue likes the sound of Ofun::ParenAll more and more :) | 05:22 | ||
benabik | Yes. they're left-associative. So ((1 || 2) ^^ 3) :adv | ||
lue | and thus 1 ** 2 ** 3 :adv is ( ( (1) ** ( (2) ** (3) ) ) :adv ) | 05:24 | |
benabik | Yes. | ||
05:24
[Sno] left
|
|||
lue | .oO(AllParen should alternate between inter-paren space and no inter-paren space for max readability, methinks) |
05:25 | |
benabik has always preferred spaces around operators, but none around parens. | |||
lue | O.o I just realized: if you think of the colon in an adverb as a double bond (chemistry), then adverbs are an infix that's double bonded to the LHS! :D (normal infixes are single bonded: i.e. 1 + 2 is 1 •+• 2) | 05:27 | |
benabik | heh | ||
lue wonders what something like ⫶?? !! would mean :) | 05:30 | ||
benabik | That you've gone quite mad. | ||
05:30
carlin left
05:31
jnap joined
|
|||
benabik | Naively, $x ⫶?? !! would mean if $x is true return $x, otherwise return $x. :-D | 05:31 | |
lue | (EXPR) ⫶??!! --> ?EXPR ?? EXPR !! !EXPR, obviously :) | 05:32 | |
Another module idea, one that I'm not so eager to pursue: Ofun::OpBonds --- Ever wanted to double- or triple-bond operators to arguments? Now you can! | 05:33 | ||
benabik | sub postfix:<:+>($x) { $x * 2 }; sub postfix:<:*>($x) { $x ** 2 } | 05:34 | |
05:35
jnap left
|
|||
lue | Ideally •, :, and ⫶ would be metaops :) | 05:35 | |
benabik | Well, ⫶ is just a special case for ??!!. There is no generic trinary operator category. | 05:43 | |
In fact ??!! itself is infix, with an is parsed that has another expression in the middle of it. :-D | 05:44 | ||
05:48
thou left
|
|||
lue imagines a incircumfix category | 05:49 | ||
*an | |||
05:51
kaleem joined
|
|||
benabik | I don't think we want to encourage that kind of behavior. :-D | 05:55 | |
06:00
rurban1 left
06:02
SamuraiJack_ joined
|
|||
lue | Here's my Day 10 post for review, #perl6: gist.github.com/lue/94a97d2e8eb96e424471 | 06:03 | |
Good ♘ all o/ | 06:04 | ||
raiph | \o | ||
benabik | lue: line 117: $z and $y :adverb # applies to and. No it doesn't. and is looser than item assignment. It applies to the $y, which is probably not what you meant. | 06:06 | |
TimToady | masak: also => is right associative, as . is in Lisp | 06:11 | |
06:14
Ben_Goldberg left
|
|||
lue | benabik: fixed (really gone now) | 06:16 | |
(and yes, I do mean &, not &&) | 06:17 | ||
06:19
darutoko joined
|
|||
raiph | r-p: sort 1, 4, 3 | 06:23 | |
camelia | ( no output ) | ||
raiph | r-p: say sort 1, 4, 3 | ||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«1 3 4» | ||
raiph | p5eval: say sort 1, 3, 2 | 06:24 | |
06:31
[Sno] joined,
jnap joined
06:34
kaleem left
06:36
jnap left
07:02
rewm joined
07:07
rewm left
07:18
dmol joined
07:26
rurban left
07:29
rurban joined
07:32
jnap joined
07:36
jnap left
07:38
Piers_ joined
07:46
fhelmberger joined
07:47
fhelmberger left
07:48
fhelmberger joined
07:52
lizmat left,
fhelmberger left
08:00
rewm joined,
Piers_ left
08:05
rewm left,
lizmat joined
08:22
rindolf joined,
kaleem joined
08:23
FROGGS joined
08:30
rewm joined
08:33
Piers_ joined,
jnap joined
08:35
rewm left
08:36
sqirrel joined
08:37
jnap left
08:42
fhelmberger joined
08:49
rindolf left
08:51
lizmat left
08:54
SevenWolf left
09:06
rewm joined
|
|||
hoelzro | morning #perl6! | 09:12 | |
FROGGS | hi hoelzro | 09:16 | |
sjn | good * #perl6 | 09:17 | |
hoelzro | ahoy FROGGS, sjn | 09:19 | |
FROGGS | o/ | 09:20 | |
09:23
denis_boyun joined,
ikrs left
09:34
jnap joined
09:38
jnap left
09:39
dakkar joined
09:59
robinsmidsrod left,
tgt joined
10:00
tgt left,
robinsmidsrod joined
|
|||
raiph | r-p: my enum Day <<Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun>>; $_ = DateTime.new(now); say sort { Day(.day-of-week - 1) }, 3, 4 | 10:05 | |
10:06
camelia left
|
|||
raiph | double oops (ww AND i think i killed camelia) | 10:06 | |
FROGGS | raiph: no, I think I did that in /privmsg a few minutes ago :/ | 10:07 | |
10:08
dayangkun joined
|
|||
moritz | evalbot control restart | 10:10 | |
10:10
camelia joined,
raydiak left
10:11
ChanServ sets mode: +v camelia
|
|||
moritz | nqp-p: say('alive') # first one will be slooow | 10:11 | |
camelia | nqp-parrot: OUTPUT«alive» | ||
moritz | or not :-) | 10:12 | |
r: say 42 | |||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de, rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«42» | ||
10:13
sqirrel left
10:20
dayangkun left
10:21
raydiak joined
10:28
tgt joined
10:31
ssutch left
10:34
jnap joined
10:37
sqirrel joined
10:38
sqirrel_ joined
10:39
sqirrel left,
jnap left
10:40
rindolf joined,
sqirrel joined
10:43
sqirrel_ left
10:50
sftp left
10:52
sftp joined
10:54
tgt left
11:09
denis_boyun left
11:11
denis_boyun joined
11:13
dmol left
11:17
rewm left
11:26
rindolf left
11:32
rewm joined,
rewm left
11:33
sqirrel left
11:36
SamuraiJack_ left
11:39
denis_boyun left
12:06
DrEeevil left
12:07
bonsaikitten joined
12:08
dmol joined
12:09
kaare_ joined
12:10
bonsaikitten left
12:12
bonsaikitten joined
12:27
telex left
12:28
telex joined
|
|||
FROGGS | ==> Successfully installed panda | 12:30 | |
<HANG> | |||
ummm :/ | |||
tadzik | yeah | ||
to-json in a loop | |||
slooooow | |||
FROGGS | tadzik: ahhh | ||
so I'll wait :o) | |||
tadzik | I guess I should make it one to-json, may turn out to be less tragic. May not | 12:31 | |
FROGGS | it is a modified panda btw, so I might be to blame anyway | ||
tadzik | in emmentaller, it used to take a couple of minutes for this ste | ||
FROGGS | done! | 12:32 | |
took about 5 minutes I think | |||
brb | |||
masak | good day, #perl6 | ||
tadzik | hey hey masak | ||
FROGGS[mobile] | hi masak | 12:33 | |
12:33
timotimo left
|
|||
FROGGS[mobile] | tadzik: I am almost at a point where I can run panda from my S11 - compliant installation | 12:35 | |
tadzik | awesome | ||
12:36
jnap joined
|
|||
masak | carlin: re s/every/ever/ -- thank you; fixed. | 12:39 | |
carlin++ | |||
FROGGS | tadzik: can you give me a commit bit for panda? I'd like to push to a branch today or tomorrow | ||
masak | someone seems to have made > out of > and saved my RHSes, fixing TimToady++'s bug. | 12:40 | |
FROGGS | tadzik: I swear I don't touch master :o) | ||
hoelzro | so I've been trying to debug that stupid parser error I found last week, and I'd like to try to change the grammar without having to recompile the setting | ||
FROGGS | p: say %*LANG<perl6> | ||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«postcircumfix:<{ }> not defined for type Failure in method gist at gen/parrot/CORE.setting:12020 in method gist at gen/parrot/CORE.setting:1014 in sub say at gen/parrot/CORE.setting:12920 in block at /tmp/JUmURjP17F:1 in any at /tmp…» | ||
masak | TimToady: dang! shoulda double-checked "left-associative". I did think through it, but clearly that wasn't enough :/ | ||
fixed. | |||
12:41
jnap left
|
|||
hoelzro | however, rakudo complains about "missing or wrong version of dependency src/Perl6/Grammar.nqp"; I'm guessing that there's some tracking of the checksum that the setting was built with or something? | 12:41 | |
FROGGS | hoelzro: correct | ||
hoelzro | good, then my instincts are right =) | ||
masak | benabik: sorry I failed to mention you in the post. I planned to but forgot :/ | ||
hoelzro | is there a way I can circumvent that? | ||
masak | benabik: I'll add it in a comment. | ||
FROGGS | hoelzro: I don't know any | 12:42 | |
hoelzro: what do you want to change btw? | |||
hoelzro | well, I want to build the setting so that perl6 works, but I want to alter the parser to see if I can find the source of this odd bug | 12:43 | |
FROGGS | ahh | ||
:/ | |||
hoelzro | because I think the alterations I want to make will cause the setting to fail to build | ||
masak | lizmat: fixed -- changed to 'means the same as :blackberries($blackberries)' -- thanks | ||
FROGGS | masak++ # post post fixing | 12:44 | |
hoelzro | well | 12:45 | |
I have a hunch about how list assignment could be messing up the pars | 12:46 | ||
*parse | |||
so I wanted to fiddle with it a bit | |||
and see if that generated the correct AST for the scalar assignment below | |||
masak | FROGGS: I should really be writing slides. I'm on a conf, and I'm on to talk for an hour day after tomorrow... | 12:47 | |
FROGGS: haven't been able to conjure up the right level of panic yet. | |||
oh, speaking of which. there's a gap in the schedule on day 13. github.com/perl6/mu/blob/master/mi...3/schedule | 12:48 | ||
FROGGS | PANIC!!!! | ||
masak | hey, calm down :P | ||
FROGGS | *g* | ||
I can't after four cups of coffee :o) | |||
masak | I will be able to cover the 13th if need be -- I can probably write it on Thursday evening. | 12:49 | |
tadzik | FROGGS: sure :) | ||
masak | but I would prefer it (as usual) if someone else jumped in. | ||
FROGGS | masak: I'd like to read something from TimToady++ | ||
12:49
sqirrel joined
|
|||
tadzik | done | 12:50 | |
masak | FROGGS: still hoping TimToady++ decides to nab slot 24. :) | ||
FROGGS | masak: that would be nice of course | 12:51 | |
masak | he did in 2010. | ||
FROGGS looks | 12:52 | ||
masak | he wrote about trolling :P | 12:53 | |
12:59
atroxaper joined
|
|||
FROGGS | tadzik: thank you! | 13:02 | |
13:03
timotimo joined
13:19
benabik left
13:21
ggoebel113 joined
13:22
dayangkun joined,
dayangkun left
13:23
FOAD_ joined,
ggoebel112 left,
FOAD left,
FOAD_ is now known as FOAD
13:34
denis_boyun joined
13:37
jnap joined
13:39
PZt left
13:41
jnap left,
fhelmberger_ joined
13:44
fhelmberger left
13:49
dayangkun joined
13:50
dayangkun left
13:52
dayangkun joined,
dayangkun left,
hummeleB1 joined
13:59
V_S_C joined
14:02
kaleem_ joined
14:04
wsri left
14:05
GlacJAY joined
|
|||
V_S_C | I'm trying Rakudo * on Windows | 14:05 | |
It says no ICU lib loaded | 14:06 | ||
14:06
kaleem left
|
|||
V_S_C | I've copied the ICU bin directory to the PERL6 bin directory already | 14:07 | |
FROGGS | V_S_C: it is not that easy sadly | ||
14:07
kaleem joined
14:08
kbaker joined
|
|||
FROGGS | you would need to recompile parrot to get icu support | 14:08 | |
V_S_C | thats alright | ||
ohh | |||
FROGGS | yeah, it does some magic to detect that when configuring it | ||
V_S_C | & I was thinking there might be version dependency.. | ||
14:08
kaleem_ left
|
|||
FROGGS | without it being found at that point, there is no chance to get the support for it later | 14:08 | |
14:09
GlacJAY left
14:11
PZt joined
14:16
atroxaper left
|
|||
V_S_C | @FROGGS That's documented en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Parrot_Virtua...ing_Parrot | 14:19 | |
Anything specific in the command line that I should remember? | 14:20 | ||
14:20
xinming_ joined,
jnap joined
|
|||
FROGGS | V_S_C: you'd need a icu-config.bat to actually use this: | 14:21 | |
--icu-config Specify a location for the Unicode ICU library on your system. | |||
14:22
bluescreen__ joined
|
|||
FROGGS | dunno if you get libicu for windows that has such a config program | 14:22 | |
14:23
xinming left
|
|||
V_S_C | thats alrite | 14:24 | |
I used HTTP::Easy::PSGI | 14:25 | ||
14:25
bluescreen100 left
|
|||
V_S_C | Occassionally, I get recv failed: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. | 14:28 | |
Any suggestion? | |||
FROGGS | no idea | 14:29 | |
V_S_C | k, thnx | ||
14:29
atroxaper joined,
PerlPilot is now known as PerlJam
|
|||
FROGGS | last time I did something with IO::Socket::INET was like twelve months ago :/ | 14:29 | |
V_S_C | The problems not with PERL | 14:30 | |
From inspecting it all I understood is | |||
rarely the user's browser/system crashes or loses connectivity.. | 14:31 | ||
The improvement I need to make in the script | |||
FROGGS | maybe use wireshark to hunt it down? | ||
14:31
wsri joined
|
|||
V_S_C | is to bind new server socket | 14:32 | |
Right now, I manually restart.. | |||
I'll find the solution | 14:33 | ||
FROGGS | I hope so :o) | ||
V_S_C | I just asked as sometimes others have already solved.. | ||
FROGGS | yeah | ||
14:33
enikar joined
|
|||
FROGGS | and it is always good that we know what is going on | 14:34 | |
V_S_C | :) | 14:35 | |
14:36
cooper left
14:39
btyler joined
14:45
bbkr joined
|
|||
bbkr | r: my $foo = 13; say :$foo | 14:45 | |
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de, rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«» | 14:46 | |
14:46
Ulti_ is now known as Ulti
|
|||
bbkr | r: my $foo = 13; say (:$foo) | 14:46 | |
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de, rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«"foo" => 13» | ||
bbkr | should those two lines above return the same result (pair)? | 14:47 | |
FROGGS | I would expect that, yes | 14:49 | |
bbkr reports bug | |||
FROGGS | bbkr++ | 14:50 | |
14:56
rindolf joined,
benabik joined
14:58
sqirrel left
15:01
markov left,
enikar left,
awwaiid_ left,
labster left,
kst left,
segomos left,
[particle] left,
sjn left,
ribasushi left,
Exodist left,
thou joined
|
|||
timotimo | but that's just the result of say not taking slurpy named arguments | 15:02 | |
should it? | |||
FROGGS | ohh | ||
15:03
[particle] joined
|
|||
FROGGS | p: my $bar = 42; sub foo(*@a) { say @a }; foo :$bar # it should complain then, no? | 15:03 | |
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«Unexpected named parameter 'bar' passed in sub foo at /tmp/_x8bbPJSlN:1 in block at /tmp/_x8bbPJSlN:1 in any at /tmp/_x8bbPJSlN:1 in any at gen/parrot/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1146 in any eval at gen/parrot/stage2/NQPHLL.nqp:1133 in a…» | ||
FROGGS | it takes slurpy named args (silently) | ||
15:04
kst joined,
enikar joined
|
|||
timotimo | that's because of the ... thingie | 15:05 | |
API compatibility ... mumble mumble | |||
that makes every sub take a named slurpy if it doesn't provide one | |||
p: say &say.signature | |||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«:()» | ||
timotimo | p: say &say | ||
camelia | rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«sub say() { ... }» | ||
timotimo | er ... ok? | ||
15:06
awwaiid joined
|
|||
timotimo | ah, yes, say takes (|) | 15:06 | |
FROGGS | I thought only methods swallow named slurpies | ||
15:06
V_S_C left
|
|||
timotimo | yeah, that must be right | 15:06 | |
look at the implementation of say; it takes a capture and iterates over the positionals only | |||
15:07
segomos joined,
sjn joined
15:09
ribasushi joined
15:10
Exodist joined
15:11
sjn left
15:15
SamuraiJack_ joined
15:18
markov joined
15:20
kaleem left,
sjn joined,
hummeleB1 left
15:24
dmol left
|
|||
colomon | Error while constructing error object:Could not locate compile-time value for symbol Syntax::Missing | 15:24 | |
Error while compiling, type X::Syntax::Missing | |||
FROGGS | colomon: you did something wrong in the setting? | 15:25 | |
colomon | well, I'm hacking in the setting. | ||
I haven't found anything obvious I did wrong yet | |||
FROGGS | underneath these massages should be the attributes that would show up in the proper exception | ||
messages* | 15:26 | ||
15:26
atroxaper left
|
|||
colomon | ack, let a C++ comment slip into my p6 code | 15:27 | |
15:29
salv0 left,
salv0 joined
|
|||
timotimo idly stares at the EXPR code to figure out if it's easy or not to fix 10 < * < 20 code-gen | 15:39 | ||
15:42
ajr joined,
Fatalnix is now known as Chillectual,
ajr is now known as Guest41534,
Guest41534 is now known as ajr_,
Chillectual is now known as Fatalnix,
SamuraiJack_ left
|
|||
colomon | errr… what's numeric bitwise or in p6? | 15:46 | |
oh! | |||
never mind | |||
C++ translation problems again | |||
15:47
pmichaud joined
|
|||
pmichaud | good morning, #perl6 | 15:47 | |
FROGGS | hi pmichaud! | ||
timotimo | hello :) | ||
FROGGS | pmichaud: you take #20? *cough* github.com/perl6/mu/blob/master/mi...3/schedule | 15:48 | |
:P | |||
pmichaud | Dec 20th is going to be a really busy day for me :) | ||
FROGGS | :o) | ||
pmichaud | plus I'm not sure what I'd write about -- I'm really rusty at the moment | ||
FROGGS | I was not that serious :o) | 15:49 | |
pmichaud | Anyone know the magic needed to log into RT? I don't seem to be able to do it. | ||
FROGGS | my bitcard account works | ||
timotimo | you're not supposed to write the 20th blogpost *on* the 20th :P | ||
pmichaud | timotimo: I'm not supposed to write my presentations on the day I give them, either... but that hasn't stopped me from doing it. :P | ||
colomon | pmichaud++ | 15:50 | |
FROGGS | "Service Temporarily Unavailable" | ||
I lied | |||
timotimo | :) |
|