🦋 Welcome to the IRC channel of the core developers of the Raku Programming Language (raku.org #rakulang). This channel is logged for the purpose of history keeping about its development | evalbot usage: 'm: say 3;' or /msg camelia m: ... | Logs available at irclogs.raku.org/raku-dev/live.html | For MoarVM see #moarvm Set by lizmat on 8 June 2022. |
|||
00:49
AlexDaniel left
00:55
MasterDuke joined
02:05
bisectable6 left,
committable6 left
02:07
bisectable6 joined,
committable6 joined
02:16
hythm joined
03:17
committable6 left,
bisectable6 left
03:19
bisectable6 joined
03:20
committable6 joined
04:20
committable6 left
04:21
committable6 joined
04:41
vrurg_ joined
04:44
vrurg left
05:26
melezhik joined
05:27
melezhik left
06:29
hythm left
06:56
ab5tract joined
07:09
ab5tract left
07:11
ab5tract joined
07:17
kjp left
07:19
kjp joined
07:57
sena_kun joined
08:23
lizmat left,
MasterDuke left
08:24
lizmat joined
|
|||
ab5tract | lovely... sinking doesnt seem to be guaranteed until check time. but I need to know about sunkenness at begintime :( | 09:01 | |
lizmat | ? if it is not the last statement in a statement list, it is sunk, isn't it? And you can't know this at BEGIN time, as you may or may not have reached the end of the statement list yet ? | 09:02 | |
so, isn't it impossible to know at BEGIN time ? | 09:03 | ||
ab5tract | hmm, I guess you are right. Thought that sinking worked a bit differently than that (I thought it was dependent on the nature of the statements themselves) | 09:08 | |
m: Q| |((* > 1) xx 3) | .AST.EVAL | 09:09 | ||
camelia | WARNINGS for <tmp>: Useless use of "|" in expression "((* > 1) xx 3) | .AST.EVAL" in sink context (line 1) No such method 'CALL-ME' for string ' ' in block <unit> at <tmp> line 1 |
||
ab5tract | m: Q| dd |((* > 1) xx 3) | .AST.EVAL | ||
camelia | WARNINGS for <tmp>: Useless use of "|" in expression "((* > 1) xx 3) | .AST.EVAL" in sink context (line 1) No such method 'CALL-ME' for string ' dd ' in block <unit> at <tmp> line 1 |
||
ab5tract | anyway, I'm having trouble with that specific whatever form.. it keeps trying to curry the `~~` instead of the `>` and I don't have a good way of detecting when this situation has occurred (without special casing it to unknown fragility levels) | 09:10 | |
I'm literally 1 test case away from being able to replace the entire whatever stack with a single role. what we have now fits all the tests but it is really fragile :( | 09:14 | ||
lizmat | could it be some magic in EXPR ? | 09:15 | |
ab5tract | you mean as a cause or as a solution? | 09:18 | |
lizmat | solution actually | ||
ab5tract | oh, interesting! | 09:19 | |
lizmat | I'm still trying to grok why the l10n things I'm doing don't work, and it seems that EXPR has something to do wiuth it | ||
ab5tract | :( | ||
the l10n stuff is really interesting, btw | 09:20 | ||
lizmat | yeah, I got stuff like: say "zonder" zonder Int; already working | 09:22 | |
but as soon as there's something declarative, it reverts to assuming it's a sub being called | 09:23 | ||
so: 'mijn $a' complains about the sub "mijn" not being found | |||
the real problem is the 1 minute+ test cycle :-( | 09:25 | ||
09:32
sena_kun left
09:51
tellable6 left
09:52
tellable6 joined
|
|||
lizmat | ab5tract: ok, I've come to the conclusion that github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/5387 is the reason l10n doesn't work | 10:13 | |
and the reason it works so far, is that EXPR is "manually" calling the associated Action methods | 10:14 | ||
so I guess I will need to focus on #5387 first :-( | 10:15 | ||
which probably means I will have to start debugging NQP :-( | 10:17 | ||
ab5tract | ouch! | 10:25 | |
lizmat | well, at least it's not that the braid loses the actions... | 10:31 | |
so it's the !reduce that probably decides somehow there's nothing to call | |||
so that would mean nqp::tryfindmethod($actions, $name) is failing ? | 10:32 | ||
ab5tract | that would be.. odd | 10:33 | |
but I guess that would make sense | 10:35 | ||
10:35
ab5tract left
|
|||
lizmat | well, I won't be able to do much the coming days as I'll be mostly afk | 10:49 | |
another datapoint: adding a FALLBACK method to the actions class, it gets called if the requested method is absent, in the legacy grammar | 10:57 | ||
in the Raku grammar, the FALLBACK method doesn't get called either | |||
11:24
ab5tract joined
|
|||
lizmat | afk& | 11:26 | |
11:26
lizmat left
|
|||
[Coke] | all the Old Ones visible in the mist this week. | 11:41 | |
12:19
NemokoschKiwi joined
12:51
NemokoschKiwi left
13:04
ab5tract left
14:13
ab5tract joined
14:47
AlexDaniel joined
16:03
zostay left,
zostay joined
16:07
elcaro left,
elcaro joined
16:49
ab5tract left,
ab5tract joined
18:01
sena_kun joined
|
|||
ab5tract | I've got four spectests passing with the the new whatevercode implementation. but I've got some tough gotchas in s/S02-types/whatever.t | 18:21 | |
19:21
committable6 left
19:24
committable6 joined
20:58
lizmat joined
|
|||
lizmat | . | 21:10 | |
22:10
committable6 left,
bisectable6 left,
bisectable6 joined
22:11
committable6 joined
22:42
AlexDaniel left
22:49
MasterDuke joined
22:56
sena_kun left
|