On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> > I'm in favour of retaining the $[ functionality, but lets give it some
> > name like $*INDEX_BEGINNING or something like that, so that it's quite
> > long for people to type :).
>
> Surely the interpreta
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:57:07AM +1100, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Martin D Kealey wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
>>> I'm in favour of retaining the $[ functionality, but lets give it some
>>> name like $*INDEX_BEGINNING or something like that, so t
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
I'm in favour of retaining the $[ functionality, but lets give it some
name like $*INDEX_BEGINNING or something like that, so that it's quite
long for people to type :).
Surely the interpretation of the
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> I'm in favour of retaining the $[ functionality, but lets give it some
> name like $*INDEX_BEGINNING or something like that, so that it's quite
> long for people to type :).
Surely the interpretation of the index should be up to each array-type?
r
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
+ $* and $# have been deprecated half of forever and are gone. $[
+ is a fossil that I suppose could turn into an evil pragma, if we
+ try to translate it at all. (Frees up * twigil for $*FOO syntax.)
I'm not even sure this makes sense to
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2009 Feb 23, at 22:43, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, jason switzer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM, wrote:
+$*PROGRAM_NAME # name of the program being executed
How does this differ from $*EXECUTABLE_NAME?
On 2009 Feb 23, at 22:43, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, jason switzer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM,
wrote:
+$*PROGRAM_NAME # name of the program being executed
How does this differ from $*EXECUTABLE_NAME?
Good question. Anyone?
I would assume $*PRO
On 2009 Feb 22, at 22:47, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
+$?PUGS_VERSION # Pugs version (not canonical)
+$*PUGS_HAS_HSPLUGINS # True if Pugs was compiled with support
for hsplugins
+ # (not canonical)
These should not be part of the standard. But while
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, jason switzer wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM, wrote:
Added: docs/Perl6/Spec/S28-special-variables.pod
===
+=head2 Named variables (see S02):
+$?OS # operating system compiled for
+$*
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM, wrote:
> Added: docs/Perl6/Spec/S28-special-variables.pod
> ===
> +=head2 Named variables (see S02):
> +$?OS # operating system compiled for
> +$*OS # operating system runn
10 matches
Mail list logo
