Re: Synopsis 26
Thom Boyer wrote: I never could find the Pod-to-XHTML'd version of S26 -- the document attached to that email was S26.pod6, not S26.xhtml. Attached. I don't want to bug Damian, because obviously he has enough of life "happening", as it were. More than enough! Thank-you all for understanding that. I'm hoping to get a run at finishing the Pod6 parser (in between crises), but don't hold your breath. :-( Damian
Enhanced enumerations
Some (many?) enumerations represent cycles, where incrementing from the last element takes you back to the first: the seasons, the months, the days of the week, the hues, etc. How hard would it be to write a module that lets you say something like: enum weekdays is cycle So that Sat++ eqv Sun (and a resumable control exception is thrown so that you can do something fancy whenever you return to the start of the cycle)? Likewise, how would one be able to legally say: enum seasons That is, to use a junction in the definition in order to provide synonyms for one of the enumerated values? -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
Re: Enhanced enumerations
On 19 Mar 2007, at 21:31, Jonathan Lang wrote: Some (many?) enumerations represent cycles, where incrementing from the last element takes you back to the first: the seasons, the months, the days of the week, the hues, etc. How hard would it be to write a module that lets you say something like: enum weekdays is cycle So that Sat++ eqv Sun (and a resumable control exception is thrown so that you can do something fancy whenever you return to the start of the cycle)? Another way of looking at that enum is as a simple state machine. More complex state machines would be nice too. That is all :) -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: request new Mapping|Hash operators
On 3/18/07, Darren Duncan wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Aaron Crane wrote: > That's easy even in Perl 5. This modifies %hash in-place: > my @values = delete @[EMAIL PROTECTED]; > @[EMAIL PROTECTED] = @values; [...] If %hash contained keys a,b,c and @old_names was a and @new_names was b, then the above code would overwrite the existing b element, and leave 2 elements total. The operation I proposed needs to fail when one requests a colliding element, such as that situation; [...] Yes, and more than that, deleting an old key and adding a new one isn't strictly the same as renaming a key. Consider what would happen if the value were a funny object that had side-effects every time you evaluated it. As for the name, I don't think it's a problem for hashes and IOs to both have "rename" methods, but I do like Uri's "rekey" suggestion. -David
