I define "outside the core" as "anything that isn't
packaged with Perl itself". Things you'd define as
"part of the language." I/O stuff, threading stuff,
standard types, builtin functions, etc. And yeah,
most of that stuff will be written natively in C,
PIR, or be part of parrot itself.
I thi
albeit it took *evil* hacks to simulate MMD inheritance. We have 2
schemes of method invocation: vtable's and MMD. Troubles begin, when
like in this test the compare function of a base class is changed at
runtime, and the sort function in array_sort should use that changed
compare in a derived
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:41:58AM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> BTW, I tend to think that modules that require lots of other things
> deserve lower kwalitee...
Because reinventing the wheel is a good thing, right?
Tony
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 19:21, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
> Well, that's what all of the ruckus is about.
> There is a strong leaning towards including *no*
> builtin modules with the core. So, that leaves only
> the builtin functions and classes as "the core", and
> so what is "in core" becomes a prett
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Well, Perl 6 is coming with one of those as a builtin, called C
> (see List::Util). But you can't quite use a shorthand syntax like
> yours. You have to say either:
Cool, that's what I wanted to know. Taking into account both this
circumstance and the
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Those blocks would be a syntax error; the appropriate way to do that
> would be to refer to the operator by its proper name:
>
> my $tot = fold 0, &infix:+, 1..10;
Well, I suspected that. The matter is I still know too few concretely
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
> And adding to that the definition of a unary hyper operator:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] == map { Â$_ } @list
>
> It seems that the rand problem could be solved this way:
>
> my @nums = rand (100 xx 100);
Huh?!? While not so bad (apart the unicode o
Michele Dondi writes:
> Quite similarly, for example, I'd like to have a fold() function like the
> one that is available in many functional programming languages, a la:
>
> my $tot = fold 0, { + }, 1..10; # 55
> my $fact = fold 1, { * }, 2..5; # 120
>
> (i.e. please DO NOT point out that th
Michele Dondi wrote:
Quite similarly, for example, I'd like to have a fold() function like the
one that is available in many functional programming languages, a la:
my $tot = fold 0, { + }, 1..10; # 55
my $fact = fold 1, { * }, 2..5; # 120
Those blocks would be a syntax error; the appropriate
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
> When I think about your description of xxx, I
> summarized it in my head as "Call a coderef a certain
> number of times, and then collect the results."
> That's pretty much what map is, except that xxx is
> infix and map is prefix.
>
> @results =
Paul Johnson wrote:
At the moment the focus seems very much on packaging. That's fine, but
it does mean that "correctly" packaged junk looks pretty good. In time,
some more metrics would be good. Some suggestions:
- How do the CPAN testers reports look?
- What does cpanratings think?
- Some a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) writes:
> Short version: I'm considering dropping the exit code feature from the
> default behavior of Test::Builder and making it something you can turn on
> instead. Does anyone find this feature useful or otherwise wish to
> protest its removal in 0.50?
12 matches
Mail list logo
