On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:32:21PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: >>i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
: >>
: >>XP = extreme programming
: >>DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
: >>MP = ??
: >
: >
: >Modu
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Modular Programming
David
I think it's Metaprogramming. :)
The only thing that sprung to my mind was "MetaPost"...
Michele
--
No one can ever predict all of the possible error conditions, of course;
as soon as we write idiot-proof code, along comes a bet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
XP = extreme programming
DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
MP = ??
Modular Programming
David
I think it's Metaprogramming. :)
Miro
Aaron Sherman wrote:
So hold on to your socks... what about:
@x @y;
This reminds me of AWK's string concatenation behaviour:
print "this " $1 " that " $2
This was nice feature at the time, but caused problems down the track
when they wanted to add functions to the language in a subsequen
Uri Guttman wrote:
[...]
i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
XP = extreme programming
DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
MP = ??
Modular Programming
David
John Macdonald wrote:
The basic problem is that a junction does not work well with
boolean operations, because the answer is usually "sometimes
yes and sometimes no" and until you resolve which of those is
the one you want, you have to proceed with both conditions.
Well, just patch the boolean oper
> "MD" == Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
>> roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but
>> also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties
MD> ^^ ^^^
MD> ^
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but
also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties
^^ ^^^
^^ ^^^
1. 2.
Ehmmm... sorry for the ignorance, but...
1. Fu
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Logic Programming in Perl 6
> > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
> > answer
> > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
> > limiting
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
: --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: >Logic Programming in Perl 6
: > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
: > answer
: > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
: > limiting
--- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Logic Programming in Perl 6
> Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
> answer
> yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
> limiting case
> you could always back out the entire perl 6 grammar and i
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 06:04, Rod Adams wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
> >precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
> >as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
> >use <== or ==> for list
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: > pipe dreams
: > Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
: > appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!?
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
use <== or ==> for list assignment. That would be...interesting
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: > pipe dreams
: > Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
: > appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!? It doesn't seem to
Michele Dondi wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed to be yet another ope
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-01-31 through 2004-02-8
All~
Welcome to yet another summary in which I will undoubtedly confuse to
homophones. Probably more than a few this week as I am a little tired.
But perhaps the alien on my window or the vampire on my monitor will
help
18 matches
Mail list logo
