Would it be fair to describe that as "rendering unto the system
software that which belongs to the system, and unto the user that
which properly belongs to the application"?
(Which, in my opinion, is a principle neglected far too often by
programmers who've been taught to write OSs, but have to so
Perl 5 programmers are used to being casual about closing file
handles. Obviously, 6 requires a change of habits. A cultural shift,
if that's not too pretentious a term. Perhaps it needs to be mentioned
in large, friendly letters somewhere in the documentation?
On 9/5/17, jn...@jnthn.net via RT w
Isn't there a point at which there's no obvious practical application
for extreme numbers? It's all very well letting mathematicians romp
around unconstrained, but is it worth complicating the language or its
development for the rest of us?
> Something bit you; note that you are not using "-e" but "–e" (U+2013 EN DASH).
>
Right, the consequence of cutting & pasting. It's interesting that the
error message on the corrected version is unlike either of the
original examples.
I just noticed the - was a different length, so I changed it, et voila:
perl6 -e "my \foo = Callable but role:: { };"
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Undeclared routine:
role used at line 1. Did you mean 'roll'?
On 6/5/17, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a kibitzer, I tri
As a kibitzer, I tried that with "This is Rakudo version 2017.04.3
built on MoarVM version 2017.04-53-g66c6dda
implementing Perl 6.c".
and got:
perl6 –e "my \foo = Callable but role:: { };"
Could not open –e. Failed to stat file: no such file or directory
while:
perl6 -e "say 'boo'"
boo
worked
That is so easy for a programmer to implement; I have an "nyi"
subroutine/function in the my skeleton scripts for both Perl 5 and
Bash. Is it worth cluttering the language?
If Zoffix gets this confused, maybe the explanation needs some work
for mere mortals?
On 4/30/17, Zoffix Znet via RT wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:47:16 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote:
>
>> The correct way to write that would be to use `&`.
>
> And .so on .name
>
