| 25 Nov 2025 | |||
| camelia | 0.7 0.7 1.8 5.6 |
17:29 | |
| arkiuat | [Coke], good to know | 17:31 | |
| 26 Nov 2025 | |||
| [Coke], I've made the requested change in github.com/Raku/doc/pull/4723 so it should be ready to go | 17:21 | ||
| Geth | doc/main: 37a1e7e971 | (Eric Forste)++ (committed using GitHub Web editor) | 2 files Instant, DateTime: discuss leap seconds per issue 3881 (#4723) * Instant, DateTime: discuss leap seconds per issue 3881 * fix rakudoc syntax/format errors * nitpicky change of placeholder variable name * link all occurrences of C<Instant> |
18:32 | |
| doc/main: a53b6fe11a | schultzdavid++ (committed using GitHub Web editor) | doc/Type/Telemetry.rakudoc Document parameters :$heap and $message of Telemetry::snap (#4724) * document parameters :$heap and $message of Telemetry::snap As requested in issue #2905, this documents the parameters :$heap and $message that got introduced for 2019.07 through the commits afc9f84 90e18b6 and 0c80e06 . * plural ... (8 more lines) |
18:33 | ||
| doc/main: a10573fe08 | timo++ (committed using GitHub Web editor) | doc/Type/independent-routines.rakudoc Clarification on &done and &emit (#4721) emit and done use control exceptions so you don't have to lexically place them inside a react or supply block. Also mention the LAST phaser in whenver blocks is like the done named argument to method tap. Also, calling &done will return from the supply or react block. |
|||
| disbot6 | <librasteve> arkuiat: I have some concerns about Commit 37a1e7e, please can you check the comments I made here github.com/Raku/doc/commit/37a1e7e971 ... and either apply them or rollback and we can do a more thorough review? | 20:55 | |
| arkiuat | librasteve, I'll take a look, but github.com/Raku/doc/issues/3881 has just been languishing there for over four years, so let's talk about specific proposed edits to the text that has been approved and merged rather than a rollback? | 21:54 | |
| I'd love to hear your ideas about how you would address issue 3881. | 21:55 | ||
| I requested suggestions for cuts to this text both here and on #raku several days ago. If you have suggested cuts, they're still welcome. | 22:11 | ||
| [Coke] | I don't want to roll that back. Concrete suggestions on improvements are welcome, of course. | 22:17 | |
| I will say I have seen many times "why is this off by..." | |||
| Would you feel better if this section was in Traps, perhaps? | |||
| (which brings me to: I don't like traps, and think they should be closer to the primary docs they're addressing) | 22:27 | ||
| disbot6 | <librasteve> this discussion has been running 4 years, I have been an active colocutor in the various discussions, the last contribution from me github.com/Raku/problem-solving/issues/497 was to 100% agree with I think the sooner we decouple from it (POSIX) the better. (author Arkuiat). Now in a matter of two days this concensus has been reversed - no attempt to decouple from POSIX has been done and the main view I have | 22:32 | |
| expressed (ie that for Raku Instant this is an OS level "don't care" now has been released as a long detailed description about how raku Instant suffers from the woes of POSIX timestamps (when in fact Raku design has gone to lengths to avoid this negative association) | |||
| <librasteve> so pleae can we do a review that allows for concensus among the interested folks? | 22:33 | ||
| [Coke] raises his hands and lets librasteve own this one. | 22:34 | ||
| Sure, go ahead, revert it. | |||
| sorry, arkiuat. | |||
| afk | |||
| Geth | ¦ doc: coke assigned to librasteve Issue Make the role of "leap seconds" more obvious in DateTime and Instant github.com/Raku/doc/issues/3881 | 22:36 | |
| disbot6 | <librasteve> arkuiat, coke: sorry that was unfair and over the top - I know you are keen to make the raku docs better - I sincerely apologise and will try better to be kinder | 23:27 | |
| 27 Nov 2025 | |||
| [Coke] | librasteve - again, no worries. I hadn't seen the related problem solving ticket. If you see a docs PR come through that has a topic you feel strongly on, please mark yourself as reviewer. | 15:53 | |
| arkiuat | librasteve: no worries. We all care a lot about this language, and so feelings run high sometimes. | 16:17 | |
| However, I'm sorry, but I've closely reread the discussion in github.com/Raku/problem-solving/issues/497 and the text that I added to the Instant doc, and I'm simply not finding the conflict you're trying to point out. | 16:19 | ||
| Issue 497 is all about an epoch or lack of same, while in the addition to the documentation, I was very careful to avoid any discussion or even mention of epochs, and confine myself to talking about the differences/deltas between POSIX time and what's tracked by Instant: which is exactly what docs issue 9881 wanted to have explained. | 16:20 | ||
| I'd like to alter the text to address your concern, but I need some help from you in figuring out what your concern is exactly. | 16:21 | ||
| Also, I personally do not think that Instant suffers from the woes of POSIX timestamps, and in fact resolves the problems with them. The only thing in this discussion that suffers the woes of POSIX timestamps is POSIX timestamps themselves. I'd be very surprised to discover that a text I wrote conveys an opinion opposite to the one that I actually hold. | 16:30 | ||
| s/in fact/instead I think that in fact/ | 16:31 | ||
| perhaps I was excessively cautious in trying to be objective and not push my own agenda, which would be to abandon the use of POSIX timestamps ASAP and adopt the Int or Real (as appropriate) form of Instant for that purpose instead. | 16:37 | ||
| disbot6 | <librasteve> arkuiat: , coke: many thanks for your forbearance ... I will review the new text and try to better clarify my concerns and to propose a cosntructive progression from it ... | 18:20 | |
| 29 Nov 2025 | |||
| Geth | rakudo.org: f58a4370e1 | (Will Coleda)++ | 2 files Add my key info |
00:41 | |
| rakudo.org: 9cf962a48b | (Will Coleda)++ | templates/downloads-verifying.html.ep fix html typo |
00:45 | ||
| arkiuat | updated github.com/Raku/doc/issues/3782 -- I'm not sure that we can't just delete the entry for C<method conj> in Numeric.rakudoc and then close the issue | 19:45 | |
| Geth | doc: arkiuat++ created pull request #4725: removing method conj from Numeric per discussion in issue 3782 |
20:09 | |
| arkiuat | that's a draft PR for now | 20:10 | |
| 30 Nov 2025 | |||
| Geth | doc: arkiuat self-assigned RFE: Please add "last" and "next" for while and until loops github.com/Raku/doc/issues/4054 arkiuat++ created pull request #4726: Language/REPL: make Trap section more prominent per issue 3908 |
00:47 | |
| ¦ doc: arkiuat self-assigned error when binding variables github.com/Raku/doc/issues/3908 | 05:18 | ||