On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 02:37:40PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Something that crossed my mind while writing this: Does
:
:for { say } <== @a;
:
: Work?
Nope. The brackets where a term is expected would be misconstrued
as an argument to the "for". Maybe we need an @= for a placeholder:
f
Juerd writes:
> Assuming the following are true:
>
> A: "if" is now a normal function
Almost. It's a statement-level form, which looks like a normal function
except for the statement: prepended on its name. Such constructs (which
include for, while, the whole gang) have a few special proper
Rod Adams skribis 2005-04-25 14:37 (-0500):
> There will always be various control constructs that cannot be written
> as an equivalent function. Otherwise, there is no way to write the
> higher level ones.
Not a problem, because we're using something to bootstrap, and the perl
6 you'll be using
Juerd wrote:
Assuming the following are true:
A: "if" is now a normal function
B: "foo() + 3" is (foo) + 3, foo doesn't get 3.
Then does that mean we're stuck with:
C: "if($foo) { say 'foo' }" being a syntax error?
I currently think A is wrong. Am I right?
Juerd
There will always be var
