On 5/29/07, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My expectation before reading the delta was that negative counts
would do a reversal:
"123" x -1 = "321"
('a', 'b', 'c') xx -3 = ('c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a');
I don't know why I think that makes sense, but it was honestly my
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 02:21:37PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: My expectation before reading the delta was that negative counts
: would do a reversal:
:
: "123" x -1 = "321"
:
: ('a', 'b', 'c') xx -3 = ('c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a');
:
: I don't know why I think that makes sense,
On 29 May 2007, at 19:21, Mark J. Reed wrote:
My expectation before reading the delta was that negative counts
would do a reversal:
"123" x -1 = "321"
('a', 'b', 'c') xx -3 = ('c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a');
I don't know why I think that makes sense, but it was honestly my
first
On 5/29/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The main rationale for going with null return is that the biggest use of
replication has generally been something like:
say $foo, ' ' x (20 - $foo.width), $bar
and it would be counterproductive to degrade to "negative" spaces in
such a case.
My expectation before reading the delta was that negative counts
would do a reversal:
"123" x -1 = "321"
('a', 'b', 'c') xx -3 = ('c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a', 'c', 'b', 'a');
I don't know why I think that makes sense, but it was honestly my
first thought. Does it make sense to anyone else? I
