Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 6:28 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:50:31PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: : > > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. : > : >Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for : >$lim

RE: Could this be any more obscure?

I guess I’m extra impressed with esoteric linguistic references. Your replies were concise and I understood them pretty quickly. Mark From: Brandon Allbery Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 21:51 To: Mark Devine Cc: la...@wall.org; ToddAndMargo ; perl6-users Subject: Re: Could this be any m

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

I'm not sure it's any better than my attempt; it has that "people's eyes will glaze over" feel to it. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:50 PM Mark Devine wrote: > Kudos to the Benevolent Dictator! > > I'll have to loop over this a few times, but it's a blast... > > Mark > > -Original Message- >

RE: Could this be any more obscure?

Kudos to the Benevolent Dictator! I'll have to loop over this a few times, but it's a blast... Mark -Original Message- From: Larry Wall Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 21:28 To: ToddAndMargo Cc: perl6-us...@perl.org Subject: Re: Could this be any more obscure? On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 a

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:50:31PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: : > > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. : > : >Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for : >$limit, $limit will take the default value s

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 4:36 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:23 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: How about just:       When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity)       represents "without bound" or "no limit". That would have certainly tip

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:23 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > How about just: > > When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) > represents "without bound" or "no limit". > > That would have certainly tipped me off > I think you are trying to tie its meaning as an argument to the value

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 3:54 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity)         represents "without bound" or "no limit" Thank you! How about just: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or "no limit". That would have certai

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/28/18 3:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > > > The value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or > > "no limit" (meaning "all possible values") when used > > as an argument. > > > Better written would be: > > Wh

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

It only means that in some cases. Consider if you are writing code that places items in a grid, and you support Inf as a grid coordinate meaning "not on the grid" which might be represented differently or which might place it at whatever edge of the grid is relevant (without forcing you to know the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for $limit, $limit will take the default value supplied by the signature, i.e. Inf. True, but that is not what the manu

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 3:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: The value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or "no limit" (meaning "all possible values") when used as an argument. Better written would be: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) represents "without

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 10:37 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: We're going to have a problem if "infinity" is not allowed in the presence of some programmers. "All values" can mean too many things in too many situations. And I don't think using * works here, quite, precisely because it can mean too many things.

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

Golfs to just the top grammar, which is the only one that returns Nil. grammar Alnum1 { token TOP {|.*} } grammar AlnumReversed { token TOP {.*|} } grammar Alpha1 { token TOP {|.*} } my $rx = rx/^ [|.*] $/; my $str="n~"; .say for "=== ==", Alnum1.parse($str), "

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

Golfs to just the top grammar, which is the only one that returns Nil. grammar Alnum1 { token TOP {|.*} } grammar AlnumReversed { token TOP {.*|} } grammar Alpha1 { token TOP {|.*} } my $rx = rx/^ [|.*] $/; my $str="n~"; .say for "=== ==", Alnum1.parse($str), "

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 12:34 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large t

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. > > Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large to represent. > But, I can't think of another way to say "all of them". > So if I

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large to represent. But, I can't think of another way to say "all of them".

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > So how am I suppose to enter that as a value? You can enter it as just plain Inf, or, if you are up to it, my preferred form: ∞ > What it really means is "all of them". It means infinite. For the .words() method, you can pass in an op

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

We're going to have a problem if "infinity" is not allowed in the presence of some programmers. "All values" can mean too many things in too many situations. And I don't think using * works here, quite, precisely because it can mean too many things. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM ToddAndMargo wr

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 11:34 PM, JJ Merelo wrote: El mié., 26 sept. 2018 a las 23:31, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users (mailto:perl6-us...@perl.org>>) escribió: You can set a limit to the number of items (words) you want to retrieve: you will get only the first $limit words. If you don't s

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

The issue doesn't seem to be the underscore, because I get the same result even when converting the underscore into a letter ('b'): $ cat gentb.p6 grammar G0 { token TOP {|.*} regex rport { } rule ruport { } #token type {+} token type {+} } grammar G1 {

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

The issue doesn't seem to be the underscore, because I get the same result even when converting the underscore into a letter ('b'): $ cat gentb.p6 grammar G0 { token TOP {|.*} regex rport { } rule ruport { } #token type {+} token type {+} } grammar G1 {

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

Are you sure about that? Underscore has been part of the specs (synopses) for for at least 10 years, probably longer. > "_" ~~ // ｢_｣ alpha => ｢_｣ On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:52 PM Brandon Allbery wrote: > "_" is not an alphabetic character. It's allowed in "alnum" because that > is by inten

Re: [perl #133541] Grammer bug vs

Are you sure about that? Underscore has been part of the specs (synopses) for for at least 10 years, probably longer. > "_" ~~ // ｢_｣ alpha => ｢_｣ On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:52 PM Brandon Allbery wrote: > "_" is not an alphabetic character. It's allowed in "alnum" because that > is by inten