Case in point: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44835476
On 2016-08-29 19:28:10, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> First of all, take a look at this:
> https://docs.perl6.org/language/traps#String_Ranges/Sequences
>
> The question is: why do we keep this trap?
>
> We all know that the idea of
I don't really want to start another ticket for what I'm about to suggest,
therefore I'll reopen this one.
Not so long ago I filed this ticket:
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131640
The underlying issue is exactly the same. And it has actually happened during
whateverable development,
# New Ticket Created by Brandon Allbery
# Please include the string: [perl #131696]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131696 >
[03 21:03:27] m: use NativeCall; sub foo(num $a) is
native("foo") { * };
[03 21:03:27
Hi there,
Assuming those two files A.pm and B.pm.
The file A.pm contains a class A and a role R with a private-method and
a $!private member. (the files are in the end of the e-mail)
1) I am wondering why a role can all its private methods:
> perl6 -I. -e 'use A; use B; my $b = B.new; $b.pu
Perhaps this example should be provided somewhere as a 'gotcha'.
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, jn...@jnthn.net via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 05:46:46 -0700, comdog wrote:
> > It seems that term precedence with << >> gets confused.
> >
> The << >> quoting c
Perhaps this example should be provided somewhere as a 'gotcha'.
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, jn...@jnthn.net via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 05:46:46 -0700, comdog wrote:
> > It seems that term precedence with << >> gets confused.
> >
> The << >> quoting c
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, jn...@jnthn.net via RT
wrote:
> I can see the potential for a human reader to be confused,
I think there are two improvements here:
* a better explanation of interpolation and what's allowed there (such
as "only postfix...") with plenty of examples.
* a better
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:09 AM, jn...@jnthn.net via RT
wrote:
> I can see the potential for a human reader to be confused,
I think there are two improvements here:
* a better explanation of interpolation and what's allowed there (such
as "only postfix...") with plenty of examples.
* a better
On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 05:46:46 -0700, comdog wrote:
> It seems that term precedence with << >> gets confused.
>
The << >> quoting construct interpolates. The rule for interpolation of method
calls, indexing, etc. after a scalar is that there may be one, but it may only
end with a ], ), } or >.
>
On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 05:46:46 -0700, comdog wrote:
> It seems that term precedence with << >> gets confused.
>
The << >> quoting construct interpolates. The rule for interpolation of method
calls, indexing, etc. after a scalar is that there may be one, but it may only
end with a ], ), } or >.
>
# New Ticket Created by "brian d foy"
# Please include the string: [perl #131695]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131695 >
It seems that term precedence with << >> gets confused.
I also asked this on StackOverf
That makes sense.
Thank you!
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:09 PM jn...@jnthn.net via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:41:35 -0700, lloyd.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "bar", :$baz) ) {
> > %h;
> > }
> >
> > note foo( { :baz } ); #-> {baz => Tru
That makes sense.
Thank you!
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:09 PM jn...@jnthn.net via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:41:35 -0700, lloyd.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "bar", :$baz) ) {
> > %h;
> > }
> >
> > note foo( { :baz } ); #-> {baz => Tru
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:41:35 -0700, lloyd.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
> sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "bar", :$baz) ) {
> %h;
> }
>
> note foo( { :baz } ); #-> {baz => True}
>
> If it's not an easy fix it might warrant a "not yet implemented" exception.
It works correctly. Doing:
sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:41:35 -0700, lloyd.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
> sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "bar", :$baz) ) {
> %h;
> }
>
> note foo( { :baz } ); #-> {baz => True}
>
> If it's not an easy fix it might warrant a "not yet implemented" exception.
It works correctly. Doing:
sub foo( %h ( :$foo = "
15 matches
Mail list logo
