| 18 Dec 2025 | |||
| patrickb | Except: If timo and I pair up. Then I guess we'd have a chance. | 15:48 | |
| timo | ok, I'll look into it this evening | ||
| [Coke] | ... ok. let me know by your EOD friday. | 15:49 | |
| And we can decide collectively tomorrow. | |||
| patrickb | timo: I don't want to force this on you, but I'd personally love to colab on this. I'd love to get to know spesh more... | ||
| timo | tomorrow is my last work day for the year, after that i would be free to do a session like that | 15:50 | |
| lizmat | fwiw, I don't think 2025.11 contained varargs support | 15:52 | |
| patrickb | That would be too late for the release. Maybe you could have a look tonight and we could maybe still do a session looking at spesh? (Please?) | ||
| lizmat | rakudo.org/post/announce-rakudo-release-2025.11 doesn't mention it | ||
| timo | yeah that's what i was thinking of doing | 15:54 | |
| patrickb | agreed. then I was wrong about that. | ||
| Wouldn't be that bad nonetheless, it's not breaking existing features. But would still be nice to get it fixed before the release. But that's mostly for selfish reasons. | 15:55 | ||
| timo | making the jit bail out when it sees a var arg native call op only makes the frame in question not be jitted, so it only really has a performance impact | 15:57 | |
| patrickb | that would be a quick fix | 15:58 | |
| timo | quick fix is good on the day before the release ;) | ||
| [Coke] | +1 | ||
| lizmat | [Coke]: Changelog processes | 16:25 | |
| *processed rather :-) | 16:45 | ||
| m: sub a(|c) { dd c }; my $a = 666; a :$a(42) | 17:20 | ||
| camelia | No such method 'CALL-ME' for invocant of type 'Pair' in block <unit> at <tmp> line 1 |
||
| lizmat | from stackoverflow.com/questions/798498...sh-in-raku | 17:27 | |
| [Coke] | releasable6: next | 17:28 | |
| releasable6 | [Coke], Next release in ≈2 days and ≈1 hour. There are no known blockers. 43 out of 44 commits logged | ||
| [Coke], Details: gist.github.com/53b5784082fe881d86...7116645ec4 | |||
| [Coke] | lizmat++! | ||
| timo | patrickb: do you have a good simple test library that lets you verify that a variadic call was done correctly? | 18:32 | |
| see the moarvm channel for the first stab at bailing out the jit when it sees a variadic nativecall | 18:34 | ||
| patrickb | There is t/04-nativecall/26-varargs.t (iirc) | 19:24 | |
| Geth | nqp/main: 4c2a291f65 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | tools/templates/MOAR_REVISION Bump MoarVM to get variadic args JIT issue patch, timo++ |
23:35 | |
| rakudo/main: 159288a3d5 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | tools/templates/NQP_REVISION Bump NQP to get variadic args JIT issue patch, timo++ |
23:40 | ||
| lizmat | [Coke]: ^^ | 23:47 | |
| sleep& | |||
| 19 Dec 2025 | |||
| releasable6 | Next release in ≈1 day and ≈15 hours. There are no known blockers. Please log your changes in the ChangeLog: github.com/rakudo/rakudo/wiki/ChangeLog-Draft | 03:00 | |
| ab5tract | I'm confused about lazy list handling in feed operators | 09:48 | |
| As far as I can tell, there is no way to create a call that takes a single element. But that seems to be a necessary feature for handling lazy lists? | |||
| m: [1,2,3].roll(*) ==> say() | 09:49 | ||
| camelia | (...) | ||
| ab5tract | m: [1,2,3].roll(*) ==> { $_ + 5 }() ==> dd() | 09:50 | |
| camelia | Failure.new(exception => X::Cannot::Lazy.new(action => ".elems", what => "")) | ||
| ab5tract | m: [1,2,3].roll(*) ==> { $_.map: * + 5 }() ==> dd() | ||
| camelia | (7, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 8, 6, 8, 8, 7, 8, 8, 7, 8, 7, 6, 7, 7, 8, 7, 6, 7, 8, 8, 7, 6, 8, 8, 6, 6, 8, 6, 8, 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 6, 7, 6, 8, 8, 7, 6, 8, 7, 7, 7, 8, 6, 7, 6, 6, 8, 7, 6, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 8, 8, 7, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8… | ||
| ab5tract | I don't see any great utility in feed operators if you still have to call map? | 09:52 | |
| Well nevermind, my main concern was that objects implementing .append can't be combined, but it looks like I was doing a dumb by using for instead of .map | 09:55 | ||
| timo | m: [1,2,3].roll(*) ==> map { $_ + 5 } ==> dd() | 09:58 | |
| camelia | (7, 8, 7, 8, 6, 8, 6, 6, 7, 8, 7, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 6, 8, 6, 8, 7, 8, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8, 8, 6, 7, 6, 8, 7, 7, 6, 8, 8, 6, 8, 7, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 6, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 8, 7, 7, 8, 6, 7, 6, 6, 8, 7, 8, 6, 8, 8, 8… | ||
| ab5tract | Here's a gist that demonstrates some of my struggle with feeds | 11:41 | |
| An aside, but still about feeds.. I'm wondering whether we could ever allow Callables instead of Calls for the pipeline expressions | 11:42 | ||
| (gist: gist.github.com/ab5tract/954fe3b45...6892197c9) | 11:43 | ||
| [Coke] | Any more commits expected before release? | 13:06 | |