00:16
sena_kun left
03:16
guifa left
04:24
guifa joined
|
|||
[Coke] | ⏳ 1382 out of 2288 modules processed (60.4%) | 05:14 | |
05:52
guifa left
07:22
[Coke] left
|
|||
Geth | rakudo/main: 91e767b267 | (Stefan Seifert)++ | src/Raku/ast/code.rakumod RakuAST: fix thunked once The once statement prefix implicitly declares a state variable. If the expression was thunked this variable would not get added to the thunk's declarations but instead to the outer scope. The p6stateinit op would then not run in a frame that was marked as having state variables. |
07:39 | |
nine | And that's 1063. But I fear that this is not the last we hear of this. I don't like the fix. It's more of a workaround. But the problem it solves is so stupid, I can't find the motivation to spend more time on it. | 07:40 | |
It fixes once { say "hi" } for 1, 2; # Why on earth would you put a loop modifier on a once statement? It's like saying "loop this! But actually, you know, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'd rather you don't". That doesn't sound like sensible code. | 07:42 | ||
07:49
[Coke] joined
|
|||
ab5tract | nine: is this behavior in roast? :O | 09:10 | |
I agree that supporting this syntax just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I guess I do see the utility in some other statement mods. | 09:14 | ||
If the for modifier case is not explicitly engraved in roast, I would support emitting a sorry for such a combination | 09:15 | ||
m: for ^5 { once { say "seen even" } if ($_+1) %% 2; say $_ } | 09:20 | ||
camelia | 0 1 2 3 4 |
||
ab5tract | m: Q| for ^5 { once { say "seen even" } if ($_+1) %% 2; say $_ } |.AST.EVAL | ||
camelia | 0 1 2 3 4 |
||
ab5tract | nine: is this supposed to work? | 09:23 | |
m: Q| for ^5 { once { say "seen the truth" } if $_; say $_ } |.AST.EVAL | |||
camelia | 0 1 2 3 4 |
||
10:25
sena_kun joined
|
|||
nine | This is from a roast test | 10:33 | |
m: @ = (L1: while True { while True { say "run"; last L1 } }); | 10:34 | ||
camelia | run | ||
nine | m: @ = (while True { while True { say "run"; last } }); | ||
camelia | ( no output ) | ||
nine | Why does the explicit loop label make that supposedly lazy loop run? | 10:35 | |
lizmat | perhaps a git blame on the test could tell us something ? | 10:37 | |
nine | Neither the commit that added the test github.com/raku/roast/commit/53d33...1a2d3318ca nor the commit that fixed the thing that the test is actually about github.com/rakudo/rakudo/pull/3623...9d926b91c7 nor the bug report github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/3622 mention anything about laziness | 10:41 | |
I dare say that spec tests is clearly written against an implementation and is not so much a specification. Not least because the comment hints in that same direction. | 10:42 | ||
bartolin_: can you shine any light on this? | |||
The design docs say "lazy loops can be indicated by putting the loop in parens or brackets:" with examples (... if COND for LIST), [for LIST { ... }] and (loop { ... }) or explicitly with the "lazy" prefix | 10:54 | ||
lizmat | TIL | 11:05 | |
11:54
lizmat left
12:18
lizmat joined
12:28
lizmat_ joined
12:30
lizmat left
12:37
sena_kun left
12:45
lizmat_ left,
lizmat joined
12:54
sena_kun joined
|
|||
Geth | rakudo/main: d244790beb | (Stefan Seifert)++ | 2 files RakuAST: better way to detect compile-time values |
13:32 | |
rakudo/main: 8e095d0489 | (Stefan Seifert)++ | src/Raku/ast/statements.rakumod RakuAST: support lazy loops with constant conditions |
|||
rakudo/main: 318b123172 | (Stefan Seifert)++ | src/Raku/ast/statements.rakumod RakuAST: support labels on lazy infinite loops |
|||
[Coke] | dot: graph is too large for cairo-renderer bitmaps. Scaling by 0.17618 to fit - that's new | 15:33 | |
(from biln) | 15:34 | ||
github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/5783 has 9 failures bisected to 5 commits | 15:40 | ||
gist.github.com/coke/e04258b645f2b...1cf48c4e58 has the full output | 15:41 | ||
Geth | rakudo/main: 62c83711df | (Stefan Seifert)++ | tools/templates/NQP_REVISION Bump NQP for repeat-loop fix |
16:00 | |
nqp/main: c1e89a23ee | (Stefan Seifert)++ | src/vm/moar/QAST/QASTOperationsMAST.nqp Fix missing register initialization in repeat loops This is finally a proper fix replacing the workaround introduced in commit 2f2ac2f0665980ef54e2bd8a634ad5ff0a590b4a. The problem was that for loops for which we need to pass the condition to the block (think while $cond -> $foo { }) we only compile the ... (10 more lines) |
|||
nine | Turns out fixing a 6 year old bug brings us to 1164 :) | ||
lizmat | nice! | 16:47 | |
timo | nice, indeed | 18:25 | |
lizmat | [Coke]: looking at the blin run now | 19:15 | |
19:22
rakkable left,
rakkable joined
19:23
rakkable left,
rakkable joined
|
|||
[Coke] | lizmat++ hopefully some real issues and not more flappers | 19:46 | |
lizmat | yeah real issues | 19:55 | |
[Coke] | \o/ I guess? :) | 20:01 | |
lizmat | well, so far naughty modules | 20:05 | |
3 done so far | 20:32 | ||
[Coke]: status update: basically 2 issues remain, one with its cause in MoarVM most likely, and one in coercion cause by "item" change | 21:04 | ||
the former is probably easily reverted and/or fixed | |||
looking with vrurg at the coercion one | |||
Geth | rakudo/main: d82d91e853 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | src/core.c/Iterable.rakumod Update comment Iterable doesn't have a dedicated .item method anymore |
21:11 | |
22:16
sena_kun left
|
|||
Geth | nqp/main: 6d98d8da02 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | tools/templates/MOAR_REVISION Bump MoarVM for syn codepoint fix, Timo++ |
22:25 | |
rakudo/main: ac06359c47 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | tools/templates/NQP_REVISION Bump NQP for syn codepoint fix, Timo++ |
22:36 | ||
lizmat | afk& | 22:38 | |
22:39
lizmat_ joined
22:43
lizmat left
22:57
guifa joined
23:39
lizmat_ left
23:40
lizmat joined
|