Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> Any word from on high whether subroutine signatures will apply to methods in
> Perl6? There's RFC128 and RFC97... but they both mostly dodge the issue of
> methods.
>
> The absense of method signatures for specifying required, optional, and
> named parameters... not to
Dave Mitchell wrote:
> foo() is a closure created at compile time. By the time the main {} block
> has been executed (but before foo() is called), the $outer:x is undef,
> and $foo:x is 'bar' (standard closure stuff). When foo() is executed,
> the anon sub is cloned, and at that time, $anon:x is s
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {
> > my $x = "bar";
> > sub foo {
> > # $x # <- uncommenting this line changes the outcome
> > return sub {$x};
> > }
> > }
> > print foo()->();
>
> Well, I would expect it to output 'foo' on both occasions, and I'm
> more than a l
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just thought I'd run the following up the flagpole to see if anyone
> laughs at it
>
> Closures are useful, powerful things, but they can also be
> dangerous and counter-intuitive, espcially to the uninitiated. For example,
> how many people could
Usually the generic way is to send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], so in your case try
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: Patel, Sharad
To: Eric Roode; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08/21/2001 7:22 AM
Subject: HOw to Unsub
HI Guys
Sorry for this but I need to know how to Unsubscribe
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 09:21:35AM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> >
> >Dave Mitchell wrote:
> >> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
> >> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
> >
> >No. People who write closures kno
HI Guys
Sorry for this but I need to know how to Unsubscribe. Any ideas ??
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Eric Roode [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: explicitly declare closures???
John Porter wrote:
>
>Dave Mitche
John Porter wrote:
>
>Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
>> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
>
>No. People who write closures know what they're doing.
>
>When's the last time someone "accidentally" wrote
Dave Mitchell wrote:
> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
No. People who write closures know what they're doing.
When's the last time someone "accidentally" wrote a closure?
--
John Porte
Just thought I'd run the following up the flagpole to see if anyone
laughs at it
Closures are useful, powerful things, but they can also be
dangerous and counter-intuitive, espcially to the uninitiated. For example,
how many people could say what the following should output,
with and without
10 matches
Mail list logo
