stevied yeah, the 2nd one was the one I'm thinking about 06:31
i did stumble on Think Raku and htat looked enticing but may be a little too basic, though I'm sure I'd get something out of it 06:33
so I had this test trying to run a command in my module:
```
my $proc;
output-like {
$proc = run 'bin/process_vimwiki_with_raku_module', :out, :err;
$proc.err.slurp(:close).say;
$proc.out.slurp(:close).say;
say $proc.exitcode;
}, rx 'hi', 'got output';
```
took me a while before it dawned on my I had a permission problem. But I could not get proc to report the "permission denied" error and I don't know why. the :err and :out were reporting nothing. 06:35
06:53 sivoais_ left 06:54 sivoais joined
MasterDuke i think that's because the "permission denied" error is coming from/printed by the shell, not the stderr of the process 08:03
stevied so is there no way to get at that? 08:04
MasterDuke i'm not sure. lots of noise when i try to google that 08:05
you could do something like `my $executable = "bin/process_vimwiki_with_raku_module"; if $executable.IO.x { $proc = run $executable. :out, :err; ... }` 08:08
stevied that would work if I knew what to specifically look for 08:10
but let's say it fails for some other reason, how would I know?
MasterDuke well, the exitcode is usually non-zero if there's a problem 08:11
08:11 discord-raku-bot left, discord-raku-bot joined
MasterDuke hm, `.x` just seems to check if there's an execute bit set at all, not whether you have permission 08:13
stevied right, but if the os failed to execute the command for some other reason, there's no way to get at the reason? 08:14
MasterDuke well, you could use `shell` instead of `run` 08:19
stevied oh interesting. didn't know that existed 08:20
MasterDuke there are downsides, but i do get the 'permission denied' in the :err of the `shell` call 08:21
stevied i'll do that if this every happens again (hopefully next time I'll realize faster that it's probably a perm problem
alright, off to bed. thanks. later 08:22
MasterDuke np
stevied seems like run is a good candidate to create a wrapper script for. Quite a bit of code compare to good old back ticks or system() command. 08:24
wrapper function, I mean
MasterDuke yep 08:36
09:07 dakkar joined
CIAvash `run` currently has issues, you can use `Proc::Async` instead docs.raku.org/type/Proc::Async 09:18
10:12 wingfold joined 10:51 wingfold left 11:06 razetime joined 12:07 wingfold joined 12:08 immediate joined
stevied oh interesting. good to know. what are the issues with run? Is it just on latest raku version? I'm running rakudo from december. 14:27
14:38 wingfold left
and what are the issues exactly? 14:54
Nemokosch the reason I use run rather than Proc::Async is exactly that the latter is overkill; one might as well use Python and subprocess 15:03
What is the difference between calling comb and just matching against the pattern? 15:07
stevied comb? 15:09
are you asking me about my proc code above?
probably not
Nemokosch nop 15:17
guifa_ Nemokosch: comb doesn't only take patterns 15:33
"abcdef".comb(2) is a bit more readable than, say, "abcdef" ~~ m:g/ .. / 15:34
Also, comb by default returns strings, whereas matching provides match objects (which stringify as you'd expect, but aren't actually strings, so there's a bit more overhead that may not be necessary) 15:35
Nemokosch Yes, I knew the latter 16:09
to be more specific: what do they do with overlapping matchings?
16:10 razetime left
for `comb`, I suppose it makes sense to not deal with stuff like this 16:11
but I wouldn't have been surprised if `match` could produce overlapping matchings inside the list
or like, matching in general
stevied got this to run a command in my test file 16:25
```
sub run_cmd(*@args) {
my $proc;
$proc = run 'bin/process_vimwiki_with_raku_module', @args, :out, :err;
$proc.err.slurp(:close).say;
$proc.out.slurp(:close).say;
}
```
so I want to simulate running a the command with no @args passed 16:26
how do I default @args to undefined?
ok, nvm. problem was with the call to run_cmd 16:37
was using a capture
17:35 dakkar left 18:51 uzl[m] joined 20:23 immediate left 21:02 sisar joined 21:18 sisar left
How can I do multi resolution based on the number of arguments pass via an @args argument? 22:34
so if there is one element...oh just hit me, I think 22:35
I can do `*@args.elems == 1`, is that right?
or actually `*@args where @args.elem == 1` I guess 22:36
guifa_ the most common is 22:37
@args where * == 1
stevied ah, intersting 22:38
guifa_ == is a numerical equality, so * == 1 is actually *.Numeric == 1, which in turn is @args.Numeric == 1, and for Positionals, the numeric is identical to .elems
actually, you can even get rid of the * == 22:39
stevied right
figured it was something like that. didn't know about the .Numeric bit, though. thanks!
guifa_ @args where 2
stevied huh. that's kind of crazy 22:40
guifa_ IIRC is because when it's given a literal, it does smartmatching @args ~~ 2, and that also will push @args into numeric context, generating the 2 22:41
but IMO where * == 2 or where .elems == 2 makes more sense to me in general coding
stevied yeah, the "where" kind of makes it weird 22:43
when would be nice
now if I wanted to make sure args[2] was an Int, what's the proper way of doing that? 22:58
at the same time I'm checking the number of args?
I can just add an `&& @args[1]`
but I'm not sure how to get the type. I remember reading this can be tricky and some methods are unreliable
guifa_ you can't just add && … because then the smart matching won't work as expected 23:01
actually wait 23:02
stevied ok. and so how do I properly check the type of the arugment?
guifa_ you can. Sorry my code still had a 'where 2' so .[2] would necessarily have to fail
*@args where 3 && .[2] ~~ Int
stevied jesus 23:04
Nemokosch Yes
Something else, I think I have asked this before
guifa_ But if you know how many args you're going to get, why do you need the slurpy?
Nemokosch How do you stop a sequence when reaching zero as a value? 23:05
guifa_ Another option, probably cleaner: 23:06
stevied that was a holdover from when I was doing thing the old school way and doing argument checks inside the body
what I do is write code the way I know how and then try to figure out how to make it more raku like
lakmatiol how does that work? Wouldn't `3 && condition` just be the condition
I would thing you would need `3 & *[2] ~~ Int:D` or sth
I would think you would need `3 & *[2] ~~ Int:D` or sth
guifa_ multi sub foo ( @args ($, Int, $, $) ) # all of the $ are "I don't care" 23:07
which could also use any slurpies, depending on how you want to call
stevied oh, wow, that's nice 23:08
a lot easier to wrap my head around and read
guifa_ lakmatiol: 3 && .[2] ~~ Int:D is equivalent to 23:11
err actually, you're right. 23:14
guifa_ needs to finish coffee before coding
But I'm not sure if the whatever block works in that context. It's probably best to just do an explicit block at that point 23:15
where { .elems == 3 && .[2] ~~ Int }
Nemokosch: what's the context of creating / using the sequence? 23:16
Drakonis where is this bridged to?
libera?
stevied hmm, complier seems to have a problem with multis used with @args (Str, Int, etc). It can't tell @args (Str, Int) apart from @args(Str) 23:17
guifa_ huh
23:18 drakonis joined
stevied got this: `multi process_args(@args (Str) where @args.elems == 1)` 23:19
and this:
`multi process_args( @args (Str, Int) where @args.elems == 2 )`
drakonis aha, so it is.
stevied getting this: Re-declaration of process_args from process_vimwiki_with_raku_module:32
guifa_ Nemokosch: 10, * - 1 ... 0 will terminate on zero, just have to make sure the sequence actually hits zero. Otherwise can use 10, * - 1 ... * ≤ 0;
(sometimes useful to the ≤ 0 if you've got fractional stuff, etc )
stevied even without the types in signature, it still can't distinguish between `where @args.elems == 1` and `where @args.elems == 2` 23:23
guifa_ m: multi sub foo(*@a (Str)) { say "A" }; multi sub foo(*@b (Str, Int) ) { say "B" }; foo 'a'; foo 'b', 1;
camelia A
B
guifa_ m: multi sub foo(*@a (Str) where @a.elems == 1) { say "A" }; multi sub foo(*@b (Str, Int) where @b.elems == 2) { say "B" }; foo 'a'; foo 'b', 1; 23:24
camelia A
B
guifa_ do you have maybe another nother process_args that you didn't declare as multi?
stevied yeah, trying to work through that now and figure out what's going on. 23:28
could also be a bug in the IDE. I got an IDE error 23:29
guifa_ Yeah, the IDE might just be looking at @args, and not compare beyond that 23:31
are you using Comma or?
stevied yeah, comma
guifa_ I've noticed lately it's occasionally had some issues with multi subs. But the code should run fine (as you can see above) 23:32
stevied so I'm getting the same error when the code is run. maybe i'm doing the multi wrong. it's been a few weeks since I've done it so i'm rusty
guifa_ Can you post the code as a gist?
guifa_ has to go afk for a bit 23:33
stevied heh, yeah, was wondering when that feature might come in handy
ok, here it is: gist.github.com/sdondley/ab982e503...e6f924d526 23:35
i'll post the whole file, too, one sec
gist.github.com/sdondley/d73d48449...d6e0a01cee 23:36
there's the whole file, most of it is commented out
ok, it is the IDE. it is running fine, had to fix something else in my code to get it to run 23:48
you can see the errors there underlined 23:50
let me restart
errors came back
yeah, so code runs perfectly fine, IDE reports bugs. comma doesn''t have a very good reporting system. they seem short-handed 23:54