|
04:03
sorear joined
05:24
sorear joined
12:51
masak joined
18:10
mberends joined
18:53
masak joined
18:57
diakopter joined
|
|||
| diakopter lurks as usual | 18:57 | ||
| masak | o/ | 19:00 | |
| spinclad | \\o | ||
| moritz_ | o| | ||
| jnthn | o/ | ||
| colomon | \\o | 19:01 | |
| jnthn | pmichaud: #rs! | ||
| moritz_ | any pmichauds around? | ||
| pmichaud | here. | ||
| jnthn | oh wow, we almost has, like, good attendance \\o/ | ||
| colomon | \\o/ | ||
| moritz_ | bkeeler? | 19:02 | |
| sorear? | |||
| shall we start with masak's gsoc report? | |||
| colomon | :) | ||
| jnthn | Why not. :-) | ||
| masak clears throat | 19:03 | ||
| spinclad | q1q | ||
| masak | I've created a branch. | ||
| in that branch, I've created a few roles. | |||
| the preexisting test file now runs. | |||
| not all tests pass. :) | |||
| I had a question for TimToady about .chars, which TimToady answered today. | |||
| moritz_ | what's the immmediate plan? any blockers? | 19:04 | |
| masak | that's it so far. progress is moderate but good. this is officially Day 2. | ||
| immediate plan is to write more tests, and pass them. | |||
| jnthn | Passing some new tests by day 2 is kinda good. :-) | ||
| masak: You planning to merge stuff to trunk fairly often, or after some review first, or? | |||
| masak: I don't want to end up with a branch with like 3 weeks worth of stuff to review, if we can avoid that. | 19:05 | ||
| masak | jnthn: I'll keep that in mind. | ||
| jnthn | OK, thanks. | ||
| masak | actually, I haven't felt the need to be in a branch at all yet. but it's only been two days. :) | 19:06 | |
| jnthn has seen too many Parrot GSoC projects in the past that never left their GSoC-long branch | |||
| masak | yeah, let's get into the habit of merging regularly. :) | ||
| jnthn | +1 | ||
| colomon | +1 | ||
| pmichaud | +1 | ||
| masak | .eor | ||
| jnthn | OK. Who next? pmichaud? | ||
| pmichaud | I reviewed more of sorear++'s REPL patch and brought a few very nice improvements into the nqp-rx mainline | 19:07 | |
| we now have autoprinting of results from the interactive REPL, with Coke++'s help | |||
| moritz_ | \\o/ | 19:08 | |
| pmichaud | I also reviewed bkeeler++'s regex interpolation code | ||
| bkeeler largely did what I was looking for, but after seeing the code I decided a different (and much less invasive) approach was called for | |||
| so, I refactored nqp and rakudo to use the newer approach | |||
| as a bonus, array-alternations of regex is now somewhat LTM-aware | 19:09 | ||
| masak | what's the refactor? in twenty words or less :) | ||
| pmichaud | bkeeler's version created a new PAST::Regex node type for interpolation | ||
| after re-reading S05, it occured to me that interpolation is really a special case of a subrule | |||
| so I rewrote it that way | 19:10 | ||
| another bonus is that things like <abc=@xyz> now work | |||
| so that you can capture the result of the alternated match | |||
| and we also get stuff like <!@xyz> | |||
| jnthn | I guess <$xyz> and <@xyz> alone don't create xyz named captures automatically? | ||
| pmichaud | they do not. | ||
| jnthn | OK | ||
| jnthn is happy about that | 19:11 | ||
| moritz_ | pmichaud: re autoprinting, did you notice that rakudo segfaults when an exception is thrown and not caught? | ||
| pmichaud | moritz_: No, I didn't notice that. Should be relatively easy to fix. | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud: More REPL work coming up next? | 19:12 | |
| pmichaud | anyway, merged the new interpolated regexes implementation | ||
| I'm currently working on REPL, yes | |||
| jnthn | Excellent. | ||
| masak | \\o/ | ||
| pmichaud | should have it ready by the end of the day. | ||
| jnthn is *so* happy to see pmichaud++ committing lots of stuff again | |||
| pmichaud | tomorrow I plan to fix up closures, and the contextual PAST node type | 19:13 | |
| spinclad | \\o/ | ||
| colomon | +1 | ||
| pmichaud | after that is lists/arrays again, probably Friday-ish. | ||
| .eor | |||
| jnthn | pmichaud: Is the parsing of some typenames in nqp-rx at all related to the grand plan surroudning contextual node? | 19:14 | |
| pmichaud | jnthn: no. | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud: OK. I found it curious to see the ability to parse them being put in without any underlying meaning, that's all. | ||
| pmichaud | it's more so we can look at supporting simple multi-subs | ||
| jnthn | Ah, OK. | ||
| +1 | |||
| pmichaud | and potentially things like "my int $x", but I'm still not at all comfortable with that declaratory syntax. | 19:15 | |
| jnthn | In what sense? | ||
| The syntax itself, or the use of it to map to underlying Parrot register types? | |||
| pmichaud | in Parrot, registers coerce, not constraint. | ||
| *constrain | |||
| jnthn | Yes, that is true. | 19:16 | |
| pmichaud | so, the Perl 6 semantic of "my int $x" is that only int can be stored there. | ||
| jnthn | *nod* | ||
| It'd be difficult to enforce that in nqp. | |||
| And probably not desirable. | |||
| pmichaud | whereas the Parrot semantic of "my int $x" would be to convert anything bound to it to an int. | ||
| jnthn | Well, maybe. | ||
| Aye. | |||
| Anyway, the multi thing sounds OK. | |||
| pmichaud | ....and that's a bit too much of a semantic gap for me to be wanting to accept right at this moment. | ||
| jnthn | Yeah, agree. | 19:17 | |
| pmichaud | so it may need to be "my int $x as int" or something like that. | ||
| jnthn | *nod* | ||
| moritz_: Has you a report? :-) | |||
| TimToady | or my int(Any) $x in the other proposal I made once | ||
| jnthn | TimToady: Yeah, I didn't dislike that syntax. | ||
| moritz_ | jnthn: moreorless | 19:18 | |
| TimToady | where Any was default, so int() would be coercive | ||
| moritz_ | I've worked on various bits and pieces | ||
| one of them being match object | |||
| had some small success in the mob5 branch | |||
| a named, non-quantified capture now works with pure Perl 6 match objects | |||
| however everything arrayish (quantified or numbered captures) goes awefully wrong | 19:19 | ||
| null PMC access in Seq!fill | |||
| somehow Perl 6 arrays seem not to like it when things are being pushed onto them via vtables, or so | |||
| haven't figured out what exactly is wrong | |||
| pmichaud | moritz_: it's all likely to be majorly refactored with array/list changes anyway | ||
| I'd be very reluctant to build lots of code on the existing array/hash implementation. | 19:20 | ||
| moritz_ | pmichaud: problem is, match objects are kinda major blocker for me | ||
| they block JSON::Tiny and thus the book chapter on grammars | |||
| pmichaud | I might be able to fix that more quickly. | ||
| we can discuss on #perl6 | |||
| moritz_ | apart from that I've done small things here and there | 19:21 | |
| started a local branch to enable enums in the setting | |||
| hit an iterator issue I haven't figured out yet - still have hope to fix it on my own | |||
| applied small patches, reviewed advent integration tests | |||
| trying to lure more contributors - ideas for new challenges are very welcome | 19:22 | ||
| way too many ideas for not-so-small projects, too few tuits | |||
| .eor | |||
| jnthn | moritz_++ | ||
| colomon? | |||
| colomon | moritz_++ | ||
| Since last time, most of my Rakudo-effort went to the release. | 19:23 | ||
| Other than that, a few minor Numeric things. | |||
| Not sure how much connectivity I'll have over the extra long weekend coming up. | |||
| PerlJam | greetings. | 19:24 | |
| colomon | o/ | ||
| PerlJam finally shows up during a #rs | 19:25 | ||
| jnthn | :-) | ||
| colomon: ero? | |||
| *eor? | |||
| colomon | jnthn: I can't think of anything else to say, so yes. :) | ||
| .eor | |||
| jnthn | :-) | 19:26 | |
| For me, I had a pretty unproductive week last week...was oddly tired. Feeling better this one. :-) Got a few small Rakudo patches in that fixed some bugs. | |||
| And also did some work on book. | |||
| Got another book patch partially there. | |||
| Did some roadmap updates to try and keep it in sync with what's done in reality. | 19:27 | ||
| This week, plan to focus on book + bugs. | |||
| masak | \\o/ | ||
| colomon | what's the deadline on the book? | ||
| jnthn | .eor | 19:28 | |
| moritz_ | colomon: too early :( | ||
| jnthn | Soon. :( | ||
| moritz_ | colomon: we don't have a hard one, I think | ||
| jnthn | Anyone else have some report, btw? | ||
| moritz_ | but after our deadline it will take a few weeks for it to actually be in print, or so | ||
| [particle] | the original intent was hardcopies at yapc::na | ||
| colomon | ah, I thought chromatic's publishing needs meant the deadline was next week. | ||
| PerlJam | didn't chromatic say in one of his emails that he needed 3-4 weeks lead time or something? | ||
| pmichaud | we also expected to have Rakudo * out by now, though. | 19:29 | |
| jnthn | That too. | ||
| moritz_ | so what's the current schedule for R*? | ||
| [particle] | make it good, then make it right, then make it on time | ||
| jnthn | If we're still shooting for June - which I believe we are - that means we have ~ a month to go. | ||
| pmichaud | shortly after June release. | ||
| moritz_ | so, "late in June"? | ||
| pmichaud | It can't be before June Parrot release | 19:30 | |
| so.... around the June release date | |||
| moritz_ | June parrot release is 15th | ||
| jnthn | It also needs to build against the June Parrot release. | ||
| moritz_ | which is as early as it can be | ||
| so... shall we say around the 22nd? | |||
| pmichaud | yapc::na is jun 21-23, so around then might be good. | ||
| jnthn | So essentially, any improvements that need nqp-rx hackage will need to go in before then. | ||
| What are the Real Big Things that must happen for release? | 19:32 | ||
| colomon | We have four weeks, then. | ||
| jnthn | We have the ROADMAP must-haves, of course. | ||
| colomon | no, wait, three? | ||
| moritz_ has blogged a list | |||
| pmichaud | four, at least | ||
| colomon | four. | ||
| exactly if we're talking the 22nd. | |||
| jnthn | I also think we need to sort out closures, match objects, arrays/lists somewhat, along with the ROADMAP thngs. | ||
| pmichaud | five if we're talking the 22nd | ||
| jnthn | *things | ||
| pmichaud | oh wait, four. | 19:33 | |
| silly calendars. | |||
| I think that closures and arrays/lists are absolutes, which is why they're high on my plate | |||
| REPL was another absolute, and I'm doing it now. | |||
| jnthn | perlgeek.de/blog-en/perl-6/ for moritz_++'s list, btw | 19:34 | |
| pmichaud | some form of Whatever handling would seem very important | ||
| anyway, by next week's #rs I'll report on must-haves. | 19:35 | ||
| jnthn | Backtraces with Perl 6 file names and line numbers - I can take this. | ||
| I planned to do it last week and lacked the energy. | |||
| pmichaud | I have energy this week, and there are a few times upcoming that are bad for coding but good for writing lists. | ||
| jnthn | +1 | ||
| PerlJam | what is "installation standards" under Ought-to-haves? Is that directory layout and such for Rakudo? | ||
| pmichaud | but anyone feel free to pre-empt me if you get the tuits :) | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud: On "/<foo>/ should pick up a regex named foo from the lexical scope, not only from method lookup" | 19:36 | |
| moritz_ | we kinda have that, vaguely | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud: How hard is that to do? | ||
| pmichaud: I did the stuff so my regex foo { ... } works | |||
| TimToady | the easiest way to *op* might be with a rewrite rule in the grammar that knows the exceptions like ranges | ||
| that would be close to spec anyway | |||
| pmichaud | jnthn: a lexical would always override a method, then? | 19:37 | |
| jnthn | TimToady: I was pondering that, and the "is this an exception" hook would just know the exceptions hard-coded, and we could fill it out later. | ||
| TimToady | that would be fine for R* | ||
| jnthn | TimToady: What pmichaud asked ;-) | ||
| pmichaud: <.foo> is always method and <&foo> is always lexical, though, iirc. | 19:38 | ||
| pmichaud | in some sense I'd prefer to see <&foo> always be used for the lexical. | ||
| jnthn | And <foo> would "dwim" | ||
| pmichaud | not the least of which is because I can implement that in about two keystrokes. | ||
| TimToady | tempting | 19:39 | |
| jnthn | pmichaud: If we implement <&foo> we will mitigate a lot of people's immediate problem. | ||
| pmichaud | (<foo> "dwim") I'm not always sure that we know "wym" though. | ||
| spinclad | (but <.foo> is don't-record-foo?) | ||
| TimToady | anything with punctuation on the front is don't-record | ||
| pmichaud | anyway, having <foo> automatically find things in the lexical scope is a bit tricky, because the method name doesn't have a & and the lexical name does. | 19:40 | |
| jnthn | <foo=&foo> # records | ||
| spinclad | ah. so <.foo> can be method | ||
| pmichaud | technically, <.foo> *is* method :-) | ||
| jnthn | Or <foo=.foo> | ||
| TimToady | it already is | ||
| spinclad | :) | ||
| pmichaud | anyway, if someone can let me know if <foo> is lexical priority or method priority, I can add it. | 19:41 | |
| TimToady | requiring & seems conservative, though if we change the dwimminess of <foo> it could break things later | ||
| seems fairly unlikely though | |||
| masak .oO( when syntaxes clash ) | |||
| pmichaud | right now <foo> only looks at methods in nqp-rx | ||
| jnthn | masak: From a user perspective, is having to write <&foo> for a "my regex blah { ... }" outside of a grammar going to be a pita? | 19:42 | |
| (iyo, of course :-)) | |||
| TimToady | well, I think it has to be lexical priority if it dwims, since we know that at compile time, and not the other | ||
| pmichaud | anyway, having <&foo> work is a short-term "I can do this now" sort of fix. | ||
| moritz_ | it would be a large improvement | 19:43 | |
| pmichaud | being able to make <foo> dwimmy on lexicals is a bit more work, but potentially do-able. | ||
| moritz_ | even if people still expect /<foo>/ to pick up from lexical scope | ||
| pmichaud | (I agree with TimToady++ -- any dwimminess needs to be towards lexicals.) | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud: Does that we already know all the lexicals at compile time help us? | ||
| pmichaud | jnthn: yes. | 19:44 | |
| jnthn | pmichaud: That is, could we code-gen <foo> as if it were <foo=&foo>? | ||
|
19:44
masak joined
|
|||
| TimToady | yes | 19:44 | |
| jnthn | (now easily I mean) | ||
| pmichaud | jnthn: yes, that's what would happen. | ||
| jnthn | OK, excellent. | ||
| pmichaud | The PAST::Regex node already knows how to handle aliasing. | ||
| anyway, I'll commit to <&foo> immediately, and may have <foo> shortly thereafter. | 19:45 | ||
| jnthn | pmichaud++ | ||
| moritz_: I'll try and get to "Currently user-defined operators hide candidates of the same name from outer scopes. This is rather annoying." in the next week too. | |||
| moritz_ | \\o/ | ||
| jnthn | I'll make that and backtraces my main goals. :-) | ||
| And book :-) | 19:46 | ||
| TimToady | and everything else :-) | ||
| jnthn | TimToady: That can wait for the week after. :-P | ||
| OK, any more things for this week? | 19:47 | ||
| spinclad: I think you q1q'd? | |||
| spinclad | as pure administrivia, can we get someone op'ed so we could set a /topic? (for meeting time, eg) | ||
| pmichaud | can someone write some <&foo> tests? | ||
| moritz_ | pmichaud: I can do that tonight (ie in the next 1 hour) | ||
| pmichaud | moritz_: that would be a huge help. | ||
| jnthn | moritz_++, pmichaud++ | ||
| moritz_ | so, <&foo> does not capture, right? | ||
| TimToady | but then I'll be off topic :( | ||
| correct | 19:48 | ||
| pmichaud | moritz_: it does not capture. | ||
| TimToady | nothing with punctuation captures | ||
| pmichaud | moritz_: but you can do <foo=&foo> to capture. | ||
| moritz_ | great | ||
| sure think | |||
| s/k/g/ | |||
| TimToady | you don't have to remember which characters capture, other than alphanums | ||
| pmichaud | right... any punctuation means "no capture" | ||
|
19:49
masak joined
|
|||
| spinclad | i think channel creator has op grant privilege? | 19:50 | |
| jnthn | I'm...not sure how created it. :-) | ||
| spinclad | or talk to freenode mgmt | ||
| pmichaud | I've not had much luck with freenode mgmt, fwiw. | ||
| Tene | It's not registered. | 19:51 | |
| moritz_ | easiest solution: everybody leave | ||
| Tene | Yeah, that's about the only reasonable option. | ||
| pmichaud | maybe one of us could just kic..... oh. | ||
|
19:51
masak left
|
|||
| Tene | or choose a new channel name, and actually register it when you create it. | 19:52 | |
| pmichaud | #rsketch | ||
| #rakudoreport | |||
| #rakrep | |||
| moritz_ | #rs | ||
| Tene | #rakudorakudorakudo | ||
| moritz_ | that's how we call it anyway :-) | ||
| pmichaud | there's already a #rs | ||
| moritz_ | oh wait, taken :( | 19:53 | |
| TimToady | radioshack? | ||
| PerlJam | #bikeshed ;) | ||
| pmichaud | #bs | ||
| oh, wait. | |||
| :) | |||
| jnthn | ;-) | 19:54 | |
| spinclad | #ORANGEbikeshed | ||
| pmichaud | #bikeshed-champagne | ||
| ah, heck, let's just call it #phasers | |||
| moritz_ | lol | ||
| Tene | #metarakudo | ||
| TimToady | you're fired | ||
| moritz_ | +1 to #phasers | ||
| it's free | |||
| pmichaud | .oO( TimToady is now TimTrump ?) |
19:55 | |
| TimToady | if yer a phaser, I'm s'posed to fire you | ||
| pmichaud | +1 to #phasers here, also | 19:56 | |
| this is where we meet to move Rakudo from one phase to the next :) | |||
| PerlJam | #phasers wfm (I'm rarely around at the right time anyway :) | ||
| TimToady | set phasers to #stun, or #deep-fat-fry | ||
| colomon | +1 to #phasers, though a bit worried we might attract the wrong sort with that name. ;) | ||
| spinclad | all right, +1 to #phasers here, too | ||
| jnthn | wfm :-) | ||
| TimToady | what, people coming back through wormholes? | ||
| jnthn | Though in a few years somebody will be like...wtf is it called this? | 19:57 | |
| :-) | |||
| [particle] | can irc channel names have dashes? | ||
| #rakuda-do | |||
| moritz_ | they can | ||
| moritz_ just registered #phasers | |||
| colomon | moritz_++ | ||
| moritz_ | now I just need to figure out how to add privs for others | ||
| [particle] | they probably have to join to get privs... maybe not | 19:58 | |
| pmichaud | if #phasers doesn't work out, we can always change again :) | 19:59 | |
| by then, everyone may have left #rakudosketch :) | |||
| Tene | /msg chanserv ACCESS #phasers add tene OP | ||
| etc. | |||
| jnthn | whoz op? | ||
| Tene | my policy is to always just add everyone. | 20:00 | |
| moritz_ | 22:00 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- Invalid template name given, use /msg ChanServ TEMPLATE #phasers for a list | ||
| 21:59 <moritz_> TEMPLATE #phasers | |||
| 21:59 -ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- No templates set on channel #phasers. | |||
| Tene | huh. | 20:01 | |
| spinclad | LessThanHelpful | ||
| Tene | the chanserv docs lie, I guess. | ||
| spinclad | is TEMPLATE a metaword there? | ||
| Tene | oh, um, it works for me. | 20:02 | |
| but I get that error if I give the args in the wrong order. | |||
| moritz_ tried ACCESS #phasers ADD pmichaud OP | 20:06 | ||
| oh | |||
| but +R instead of OP worked | |||
| Tene | I'll /msg you the templates set on another channel | 20:07 | |
| moritz_ | +1 | ||
| Tene | /msg chanserv flags #phasers tene +votriA | 20:09 | |
| jnthn | So, #phasers next time. | ||
| Tene | there you go | ||
| jnthn | :-) | ||
| jnthn joins it | |||
| spinclad | eoq :) | ||
| Tene | maybe +sRf on some people | 20:10 | |
| colomon | moritz_++ for getting tests added while we're still in #rs | ||
| jnthn | Aye | ||
| Are we done with #rs for the day? | |||
| moritz_ thinks so | 20:11 | ||
| TimToady | .eeyore | ||
| pmichaud | I'm done for today. | ||
| colomon | wfm | ||
| pmichaud | afk, walk | ||
| Tene | so everyone clear out of #rs? | ||
|
20:11
Tene left
|
|||
| jnthn | OK, the end | 20:11 | |
| :-) | |||
| spinclad | (we can shake out ops grants over in #phasers) | 20:12 | |
|
20:12
TimToady left
|
|||
| jnthn tosses his gavel out, and will use a phaser next time | 20:12 | ||
|
20:12
[Coke] left,
colomon left,
jnthn left
20:13
moritz_ left
|
|||