Yes, I know that there is no S08. I'm working on writing one, and I'd
like some feedback to help me do so.
My draft is going to be about Signatures and Captures. Thus, my questions:
Invocants:
* Is it illegal to specify an invocant in a sub, or is it merely
nonsensical? That is, should the co
Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Instead we should provide a very DWIMmy way to (lazily) create objects
> that behave differently in different contexts.
That's precisely what the Contextual::Return module does for Perl 5.
It's less than perfect in Perl 5, because it has to be implemented via
runtime tricker
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> On 2009 Mar 31, at 17:04, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> We had a discussion on #perl6 tonight about how to implement want(),
>> and
>> basically came to no conclusion. Then I came up with the idea that any
>> lazy implementor will come up with: drop it from the language.
On 2009 Mar 31, at 17:04, Moritz Lenz wrote:
We had a discussion on #perl6 tonight about how to implement want(),
and
basically came to no conclusion. Then I came up with the idea that any
lazy implementor will come up with: drop it from the language.
Hm, I was under the impression that want(
I've been having some second thoughts concerning this. Here's where I
stand on it now:
In Perl 6, you have the following "decision points", where code may or
may not be executed depending on a condition:
if/unless/while/until/loop/when statements; if/unless/while/until
statement modifiers; short-
To quote Jonathan Worthington:
do not want().
We had a discussion on #perl6 tonight about how to implement want(), and
basically came to no conclusion. Then I came up with the idea that any
lazy implementor will come up with: drop it from the language.
The reason is that it seems impossible to c
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, jason switzer wrote:
> Basically, the perl community has largely adopted TIMTOWTDI
So how about a "Tim the Toady"? :)
===
Hodges' Rule of Thumb: Don't expect reasonable behavior from anything with a
thumb.
In "Junction Algebra", Martin Kealey wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> > ( $a <= any(-1,+1) <= $b ) == ( $a <= any(-1,+1) && any(-1,+1) <=
>> > $b )
>>
>> Clearly, the RHS is true for $a == $b == 0, but I'm not sure the LHS
>> shouldn't also be. Isn't it just syntactic s
