On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
> >
> >for (1, 2) -> ?$prev, $cur, ?$next {
> > say "$prev -> $cur" if $prev;
> > say $cur;
> > say "$cur -> $next" if $next;
> > say "next";
> >}
> >
> [...]
>
> I assume so because it's the only execution path th
Matt Fowles wrote:
>Austin~
>
>On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Plus it's hard to talk about backwards. If you say
>>
>>for @l -> ?$prev, $curr, ?$next {...}
>>
>>what happens when you have two items in the list? I think we're best off
>>using signature rules: option
On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >>This is an interesting idea. Perhaps "for" (and "map") shift the
> >>minimum arity of the block from the given list and bind the maximum
> >>arity. Of course, the minimum arity has to be >= 1 lest an infinite
> >>loop
Austin~
On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plus it's hard to talk about backwards. If you say
>
> for @l -> ?$prev, $curr, ?$next {...}
>
> what happens when you have two items in the list? I think we're best off
> using signature rules: optional stuff comes last.
I disagre
Yes, that's the plan, but the initial implementation isn't going to
be a compiler like most people would expect:
For example, something like:
while {$a < 10} { incr a }
while isn't language syntax. it's a command. So, this code would
result in creating two PMCs for the args (first arg is {$
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 13:52:54 -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> You already know that "err" is the low-precedence version of //, right?
> What replaces that? I like "default" or "defaults" myself,
Yes, he proposed 'dor'.
As I see it err is like this:
sub infix: ($lhs is delayed, $rhs i
Luke Palmer wrote:
>>On 9/29/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
for grep {defined} @in -> $item, ?$next {
print $item unless defined $next && $item eq $next;
}
>>
>>
>
>>This is an interesting idea. Perhaps "for" (and "map") shift the
>>minimu
On 9/29/05, via RT Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # '
> # expected: '3 * 5 == 15!
> # '
> # './parrot --gc-debug
> "/home/doughera/src/parrot/parrot-andy/t/op/gc_13.pir"' failed with exit code
> 131
> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 22.
this same test fails on win32, however
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #37308]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37308 >
With a a fresh checkout (r9274) I get a number of errors where parrot eventually
gobb
On 9/29/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>for grep {defined} @in -> $item, ?$next {
> print $item unless defined $next && $item eq $next;
>}
This is an interesting idea. Perhaps "for" (and "map") shift the
minimum arity of the block from the given list and bind the maximum
a
Very cool. Will have to look into it soon.
Are you still contemplating making the whole thing compiled?
> Tcl's [expr] command now compiles expressions to PIR (before, it would
create an AST that it would then interpret when you wanted the value.).
Note: the language itself is still interpreted, t
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Imagine you're writing an implementation of the unix "uniq" function:
>
>my $prev;
>for grep {defined} @in -> $x {
>print $x unless defined $prev && $x eq $prev;
>$prev = $x;
>}
>
> This feels clumsy. $prev seems to get in the way of what I'm trying
TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Yuval Kogman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:46:37 -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
>>
>>> The recent thread on Expectuations brought back to mind something
>>> I've been
>>> thinking for a while. In short, I propose that "use fatal" be on by
>>> default, and
>>> that
Imagine you're writing an implementation of the unix "uniq" function:
my $prev;
for grep {defined} @in -> $x {
print $x unless defined $prev && $x eq $prev;
$prev = $x;
}
This feels clumsy. $prev seems to get in the way of what I'm trying to
say. Could we imbue optional b
Luke Palmer wrote:
Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
I know of (that is, ML family and Prolog) uses _. Why should we break
that? IMO, it's immediately obvious what it means.
Something tells me that in signature unification, "undef" means "this
has to be un
Tcl's [expr] command now compiles expressions to PIR (before, it
would create an AST that it would then interpret when you wanted the
value.). Note: the language itself is still interpreted, this is only
one command in the language.
E.g: given a command like
while {$a < 10} {incr $a}
Orig
On 29/09/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * "try { foo() } err next" will next even if foo() did not throw
> an exception, but returned undef. But I don't think that's a problem
> in most cases. One can always do:
> try { foo(); 1 }
I think that's a flag that it's not
Hi,
TSa wrote:
> Yuval Kogman wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:46:37 -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
>>>thinking for a while. In short, I propose that "use fatal" be on by
>>>default, and that "err" be turned into syntactic sugar for a very
>>>small try/CATCH block.
>>
>> I like it a lot. It
TSa schreef:
> Yes, I'm also all for unifying the concepts. But please
> don't let us call it exception. Exception should be a
> termination oriented (sub)concept. Some kind of scoped giving
> up. [...]
> In lack of a better word I use Event and we get
> Event::Exception, Event::Control, Event::Wa
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 12:53:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
> I don't like it at all. I fear, that we mix two orthogonal concepts
> just because it is convenient.
"just because it is convenient" is precicely why I like it =)
> To me the statement
>
>return 42; # 1
>
> has to orthogonal meanings:
>
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:46:37 -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
The recent thread on Expectuations brought back to mind something I've been
thinking for a while. In short, I propose that "use fatal" be on by default,
and
that "err" be turned into syntactic sugar fo
# New Ticket Created by Joshua Hoblitt
# Please include the string: [perl #37303]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37303 >
- Forwarded message from Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Nick Gle
I'd like to ammend, and perhaps formalize with some definitions from
my dictionary, which ships with OSX:
error - a mistake... the state or condition of being wrong in
conduct or judgement... technical - a measure of the estimated
difference between the observed or calculat
At 11:46 AM -0500 9/28/05, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
The recent thread on Expectuations brought back to mind something I've been
thinking for a while. In short, I propose that "use fatal" be on by default,
I totally, TOTALLY, agree with this.
EVERY built-in function and operator that talks to p
Hi!
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:49:40 +0200, TSa wrote:
> BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
Then I would call terrorism non linear control flow ;-)
In that case Afghanistan might be harboring computer scientists that
really like CPS, and bush is Java ;-)
> In lack of a better
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:49:11 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
But thinking about optional continuations, another thing occured
to me. It's always bugged me that warnings were something different
from exceptions, and now I think we can unify them, if we say that
Yes, I'
26 matches
Mail list logo
