On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
: Ovid wrote:
: (reversed the message a bit)
: > is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work';
:
: This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like:
:
:is 'b', 'a' # not ok
:is 'b', 'b' # ok
:is 'b', 'c' #
Ovid wrote:
(reversed the message a bit)
> is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work';
This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like:
is 'b', 'a' # not ok
is 'b', 'b' # ok
is 'b', 'c' # not ok
...
If you write:
ok 'b' === any('a'..'h')
The result is one passing
Hi all,
use v6-alpha;
sub no_donut_for_you (Str $junction) {
state $count = 0;
$count++;
return $count;
}
say no_donut_for_you( any( 'a' .. 'd' ) );
no_donut_for_you( any( 'a' .. 'd' ) ).say;
That outputs something like the following on my system (Version: 6.2.13
(r14
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
That depends on whether you mean
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words
or
~(@array.words)
It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic
unary
wolverian skribis 2005-04-05 19:31 (+0300):
> Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
Yes, . is supertight.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus you really don't want to clutter the Str type with every little
> thing you might want to do with a string. "foo".open() will probably
> work, but only because it doesn't find a Str.open and fails over to
> MMD dispatch, which ends
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
:
: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
: > afford to throw a few more convenience functions
> Shouldn't these be just methods?
I guess not. This is Perl and OO is not mandatory, or even desirable
all the time.
Adriano.
(Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
> afford to throw a few more convenience functions out there for common
> operations like word splitting and whitespace
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:28:44PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Stevan Little wrote:
: > I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this
: > bug:
: >
: > pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")'
: >
: > Will go into an infinite loop. I also tr
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Stevan Little wrote:
> I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this
> bug:
>
> pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")'
>
> Will go into an infinite loop. I also tried the empty regexp in a match
> on it's own, and it was not a problem.
>
> "AS" == Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AS> The sometimes seemingly arbitrary semantics of p5 split seem to
AS> have become something of a de facto standard, with even Java and
AS> .NET following suit (I *think*, not certain about this and too
AS> lazy to check right now).
--- Stevan Little wrote:
> I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this
> bug:
>
> pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")'
>
> Will go into an infinite loop. I also tried the empty regexp in a match
> on it's own, and it was not a problem.
Further to that, I noticed that the somewh
Autrijus,
I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this
bug:
pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")'
Will go into an infinite loop. I also tried the empty regexp in a match
on it's own, and it was not a problem.
- Steve
14 matches
Mail list logo
