similar to: IRC question about ?foo etc

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 11:13:42PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > let other_func ~foo ~bar ?baz = > func ~foo ~bar ?baz Actually there is a third issue which is what makes this even more confusing. ?baz (when calling a function) expects that baz (the binding) is an option, and passes either nothing (if baz = None) or the optional argument (if baz <> None). In effect it

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use

Hi, Thanks both of you for the help. I just missed that Create function had many optional arguments... sorry for that. However my problem wasn't coming from here (IRBuilder CreateCall function still return a pointer to CallInst so I just added 2 times the call?). I didn't wanted to detail the all issue previously because I knew I had a problem with my syntax. So here's my problem: I

Hello, I recently made a feature request with a patch for terser mocks. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=10412&group_id=1917&atid=7480 Here are some examples with their current equivalents: the_mock.expects.foo(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects.foo(1,2).returns(:bar) the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2).returns(:bar)

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 11-Apr-2007 15:31 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-8687 ] Block''s return value is dropped on stubbed yielding methods. To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #8687, was opened at 2007-02-15 17:29 You can respond by visiting:

[Was initially posted on cfe-users, sorry.] Hi, I'm sorry my message is quite long, the TL;DR version is "g++ and clang++ seem to have different opinions on how RTTI, templates, and ELF visibility should interact". I can't tell whether this is a bug or not: I have found no relevant documentation that could help me decide whether this behavior is meant, or not. All I can say

Hi all, I expect I'm getting something wrong, but cat("foo bar baz foo bar baz foo bar baz", fill = 10) should be broken into lines of width 10, whereas I get: > cat("foo bar baz foo bar baz foo bar baz", fill = 10) foo bar baz foo bar baz foo bar baz This is on R 3.4.3, but I don't see mentions of it fixed in 3.4.4 or r-devel NEWS. Cheers, David

How can I do this?: foo { name: $bar => "frob" } define foo( $bar = false, $baz = false ) { if #$bar and $baz both defined $cmd = "frobnicate --bar=$bar --baz=$baz ${name}" else if #$bar defined $cmd = "frobnicate --bar=$bar ${name}" else if #$baz defined $cmd = "frobnicate --baz=$baz ${name}" else

Hi, I have a situation where I want to delete some of my excluded patterns but still want to preserve some other. For example consider below source and destination directory hierarchy. Source Dest ---------- --------- /foo/bar/ /foo/bar/ | -> baz | -> baz | -> xyz | -> xyz | ->

Hi, I read below lines in rsync v3.0.5 for --relative option. if you used this command: rsync -av /foo/bar/baz.c remote:/tmp/ ... this would create a file named baz.c in /tmp/ on the remote machine. If instead you used rsync -avR /foo/bar/baz.c remote:/tmp/ then a file named /tmp/foo/bar/baz.c would be created on the remote machine, preserving its full path It is also possible to limit the

Hi, I know S manuals used to warn against using the same names for a variable and a function, but I have never seen that cause problems in R, so I usually don't pay much attention to it. Which is why the following behaviour came as a surprise: > bar <- function() 1 > foo <- function(bar = bar()) { + bar + } > foo(9) [1] 9 > foo() Error in foo() : recursive default

Hi John, there?s a bug in Markdown.pl: [foo*bar](#) [baz*quux](#) This expands to the following: <p><a href="#">foo<em>bar</a> <a href="#">baz</em>quux</a></p> Those `*` should either be disregarded or the tags should nest correctly: 1. <p><a href="#">foo*bar</a> <a

Hi, I am trying to create a pass that is similar to the GlobalMerge code found here: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/GlobalMerge_8cpp_source.html I am concerned with lines 149-163 of the above file. From the documentation at the top of the file, it will convert this: static int foo[N], bar[N], baz[N]; for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) { foo[i] = bar[i] * baz[i]; } Into something like this

I'm using: % ssh -V SSH Version OpenSSH-1.2.3, protocol version 1.5. Compiled with SSL. % uname -a Linux gellar 2.2.13 #1 SMP Wed Dec 29 14:07:41 PST 1999 i686 unknown and am wondering whether it's a fundamental shortcoming of the SSH protocol that argument splitting is not preserved from client to server, but instead the argument list is re-split on whitespace. E.g., from my machine

Hi Renato, On 08/01/13 17:16, Renato Golin wrote: > After looking at the Livermore for a while, we found the issue that was causing > LTO to produce a different result. > > Consider the code below [1]. setup() doesn't touch bar/baz, main() doesn't > reference foo. LTO finds, correctly, I don't think this is correct. At the LLVM IR level it is valid to write into bar

Hi Duncan, Ok, I found that even if main() does reference foo, setup() still gets chopped off and the results is the unexpected: Foo: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Bar: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baz: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 So, while there is the issue in LTO, I still think Clang could give a warning. This is a source of buffer overflow

Hi, I'm trying to use a list of symbols as one of the values to be substituted in a substitute expression, but I can't figure out how to write the correct expression for my problem. Let me illustrate a simple example of what I'm trying to do. The following code snippet will evaluate to '5': symname <- 'foo' foo <- 5 expr <- substitute(c(expr), list(expr =

Howdy, [Please preserve the CC to 424919-forwarded at bugs.debian.org on any replies.] The following bug in Markdown was reported to the Debian bug tracking system. In short, running both the released version of Markdown and the latest beta on * foo > bar > baz produces invalid HTML. ----- Forwarded message from Joey Hess <joeyh at debian.org> ----- From: Joey Hess <joeyh

Hello again, all: When downloading a file from the puppetmaster''s fileserver, like so: ==========SNIP========== define install_file ($mode = 0644, $owner = ''root'', $group = ''root'') { file { "${name}": source => [ "puppet://${puppetserver}/dist/files/${name}_${operatingsystem}",

Hi Kev, I'm glad to hear llvm-objdump is getting attention. I'm unclear on how much output specialization one could (or should) do for ELF vs. Mach-O. If you're game, let's compare an example: $ cat labeltest.s .text foo: nop bar: bum: nop jmp bar jmp bum jmp baz nop baz: nop Assembling for x86 and llvm-objdump'ing, i get $ llvm-mc