Geoffrey Young wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:44:50AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
plan tests => 14, if => have( "Foo" ) && moon_phase eq "waning";
The downside here, as Geoff alluded to, is that we don't really want the
short circuiting behaviour of &&, since evaluating
John Siracusa writes:
> Call me crazy, but at this point I'm prone to stick with what I've done in
> Perl 5 for years:
>
> $var{'key1'}{'key2'}[3]{'key3'}
In which case do that, since it'll still work in Perl 6.
Actually, it works 'better' in Perl 6, since it doesn't mislead in any
way.
I'
Jim Cromie writes:
> since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
>
> qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
> those which are undefined are preserved literally.
So then when doing maintenance on some code I can break it by
introducing a
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:45:39 -0500, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:20 AM -0800 11/30/04, Jeff Clites wrote:
> >% cat continuation6.ruby
> >def strange
> > callcc {|continuation| $saved = continuation}
> >end
> >
> >def outer
> > a = 0
> > strange()
> > a = a + 1
> >
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:10:48 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> > > use CGI «:standard»;
> > > [...]
> > > use CGi <:standard>;
> >
> > Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
>
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:10:48 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
> >
> >use CGI ':standard';
I normally use qw// when use-ing. *shrug*
> And won't we just be doing:
>
> use CGI :
All the cool kids are thinking aloud these days. Why not jump on the
bandwagon?
Larry Wall writes:
> * We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
>
> $var[3]
It looks like if you shook that up and down a bit, it would break in
half.
I wonder what would happen if we made <> a lit
Python provides the ability for any function to be called with either
positional or keyword [1] arguments. Here is a particularly brutal example:
args={'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}
def f(a,b,c): return (a,b,c)
def g(b,c,a): return (a,b,c)
for j in [f,g]: print j(1,2,3)
for j in [f,g]:
John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> > use CGI «:standard»;
> > [...]
> > use CGi <:standard>;
>
> Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
>
>use CGI ':standard';
And won't we just be doing:
use CGI :standard;
anyway?
--
Brent '
On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> use CGI «:standard»;
> [...]
> use CGi <:standard>;
Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
use CGI ':standard';
It really ain't all that broke, is it?
-John
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:03:38PM -0800, Jon Ericson wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > The p5-to-p6 translator will turn any
: >
: > while () {...}
: >
: > into
: >
: > for @$handle {...}
:
: Including:
:
: while(<>) {...}
:
: to
:
: for @$ {...}
:
: ?
You le
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:54:45PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Jim Cromie writes:
> >
> > since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
> >
> > qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
> > those which are undefined are preserved literally.
>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:27:55PM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: Even if he wasn't cackling, I admit to feeling it. I don't even use
: the qx/qq/qw stuff in perl5. I always got by with "".
:
: Although I must admit to liking python's C< r"..." > meaning
: absolutely raw string (useful for avoiding
Abhijit Mahabal writes:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> > Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> >
> > > I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
> > >
> > > our &xsub = { $x };
> >
> > No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
> > instead:
> >
> >
Jim Cromie writes:
>
> since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
>
> qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
> those which are undefined are preserved literally.
Eeeew. Probably going to shoot this down. But let's see where you're
go
Jim Cromie skribis 2004-11-30 16:53 (-0700):
>my @args = @{$template{args}};
>my $body = $template{body};
>eval sub qq:i{
> my ($self, @args) = @_;
> $body;
>}
Please explain what you want it to do with @args there.
Juerd
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:26:06PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > * Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
: > how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
: > whatever) in scalar context, a
> "AH" == Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AH> Larry Wall wrote:
>> * We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
>>
>> $var[3]
>>
AH> No more or less typeable for me, or anyone else who can remap their
AH> keyboard. I'm presuming there's something costly about
Austin~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:15:54 -0500, Austin Hastings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Larry Wall wrote:
>
> And now, Piers is cackling madly at Matt: welcome to "perl6-hightraffic!"
>
> :-)
Even if he wasn't cackling, I admit to feeling it. I don't even use
th
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:55:47PM +0100, Tels wrote:
> > Ok, Test::Legacy it is. Now I have to figure out if I want to reimplement
> > Test.pm from scratch or try and wedge a TB object into the existing code.
> > Sean's added a lot of code since last I looked.
>
> I really have to ask :o)
>
> *
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
I like this in general. However...
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
whatever) in scalar context, and $fh.fetch or @$fh
Peter Sinnott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eval_4.pasm seems to be falling over on redhat as 3 when running
> with jit.
Fixed.
leo
A request to everyone who wants to discuss this again: please, read the
Backticks thread. Almost everything that can be said about this subject
has already been said before. It is a huge thread, and let's not copy
everything here.
Alexey Trofimenko skribis 2004-11-30 14:34 (+0300):
> but it puts
# New Ticket Created by Justin DeVuyst
# Please include the string: [perl #32699]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32699 >
This patch will allow all the *.imc and *.pasm benchmarks to be
tested by running
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 3:02 PM +0100 11/25/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Transcendental (and some other) ops that have a FLOATVAL out
>>argument and INTVAL source argument(s) are deprecated.
> No, dammit, they are *not* deprecated.
Ok. The word deprecated was too strong.
> L
Matt Fowles skribis 2004-11-29 22:22 (-0500):
> Juerd suggested scrapping qx and qw in favor of qq:x and qq:w, which
> Larry liked.
Credit for this shouldn't be mine, but Larry's, as it's his invention:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Juerd
I've moved a lot of the globals into the imc_info structure. The PASM
and PIR compilers are basically re-entrant now (there are likely some
issues with line numbers in error reports).
To achieve this a lot of functions got an interpreter argument, which
unfortunately makes the patch rather big.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... This patch broke a lot of my code.
All opcode permutations [1] are still valid. Can you please provide a
PASM snippet that doesn't work anymore.
[1] except abs I, N which was the only opcode with an integer result for
a float argument and lcm N,I,I w
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... The answer isn't to reduce the op count. The
> answer's to make the cores manageable, which doesn't require tossing
> ops out.
It seems that it was a bit unclear what my patches did. The confusion
seem to arise from the usage of the term opcode. I use
29 matches
Mail list logo
