Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2016
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:09:46PM -0000, Father Chrysostomos wrote:
> Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > I think it would be awkward if we we were both working on sig code at the
> > same time. Perhaps I should do the \@y work? Is this agreed upon syntax?
> > It there a thread I can peruse for the details?
> > I assume its just a case of the parser flagging an OP_ARGELEM
> > (with OPf_REF perhaps), and then for pp_argelem to store SvRV(rhs)
> > in the pad slot, while croaking if the RHS isn't of the right type?
>
> The ticket is #128242, but it is not very focused and has loose ends.
>
> I had already implemented it before reading this. I have just pushed
> the sprout/sigwack branch. It only implements the agreed-upon behav-
> iour, which allows only refs for the arguments. The other sugges-
> tions, which were not really agreed upon, I have left undone.
>
> I do not mind resolving conflicts after you merge your first sig
> branch into blead. But if you want to do it instead (or rewrite it),
> that is fine.
I've just pushed smoke-me/davem/sub_argsB4, which is sub_argsB3 with
extra commits that should address the issues you raised in this thread.
Once that's merged, I'll review your sigwack branch and merge/modify it as
appropriate.
--
Spock (or Data) is fired from his high-ranking position for not being able
to understand the most basic nuances of about one in three sentences that
anyone says to him.
-- Things That Never Happen in "Star Trek" #19
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next