»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/IyXwfD53Ua␤Radix 1 out of range (allowed: 2..36)␤at /tmp/IyXwfD53Ua:1␤------> say :1<111>⏏<EOL>␤»
..rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/tWcRroqwW2␤Radix 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 object␤current 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/W1ZbcBSdWS␤You can't adverb that␤at /tmp/W1ZbcBSdWS:1␤------> say "what" :the⏏<EOL>␤ expecting any of:␤ pair value␤»
..rakudo-jvm 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/Uip7_P30gD␤You can't adverb that␤at /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/jYqk7yxlpT␤You can't adverb that␤at /tmp/jYqk7yxlpT:1␤------> say 2 :adv⏏<EOL>␤ expecting any of:␤ pair value␤»
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/59_1KjgAkh␤You can't adverb that␤at /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/lvwI95zYFl␤You can't adverb that␤at /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 that␤at /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/EOqManUWpn␤You can't adverb that␤at /tmp/EOqManUWpn:1␤------> 1 == 2 :adv⏏; # case in point␤ expecting any of:␤ pair value␤»
..rakudo-parrot 0bf3de: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling /tmp/aefBrHPmTx␤You can't adverb that␤at /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 &gt; 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 :)