Just thought I'd run the following up the flagpole to see if anyone
laughs at it
Closures are useful, powerful things, but they can also be
dangerous and counter-intuitive, espcially to the uninitiated. For example,
how many people could say what the following should output,
with and without
Usually the generic way is to send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], so in your case try
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: Patel, Sharad
To: Eric Roode; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08/21/2001 7:22 AM
Subject: HOw to Unsub
HI Guys
Sorry for this but I need to know how to Unsubscribe
Dave Mitchell wrote:
> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
No. People who write closures know what they're doing.
When's the last time someone "accidentally" wrote a closure?
--
John Porte
John Porter wrote:
>
>Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
>> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
>
>No. People who write closures know what they're doing.
>
>When's the last time someone "accidentally" wrote
HI Guys
Sorry for this but I need to know how to Unsubscribe. Any ideas ??
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Eric Roode [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: explicitly declare closures???
John Porter wrote:
>
>Dave Mitche
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 09:21:35AM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> >
> >Dave Mitchell wrote:
> >> ie by default lexicals are only in scope in their own sub, not within
> >> nested subs - and you have to explicitly 'import' them to use them.
> >
> >No. People who write closures kno
Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just thought I'd run the following up the flagpole to see if anyone
> laughs at it
>
> Closures are useful, powerful things, but they can also be
> dangerous and counter-intuitive, espcially to the uninitiated. For example,
> how many people could
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > {
> > my $x = "bar";
> > sub foo {
> > # $x # <- uncommenting this line changes the outcome
> > return sub {$x};
> > }
> > }
> > print foo()->();
>
> Well, I would expect it to output 'foo' on both occasions, and I'm
> more than a l
Dave Mitchell wrote:
> foo() is a closure created at compile time. By the time the main {} block
> has been executed (but before foo() is called), the $outer:x is undef,
> and $foo:x is 'bar' (standard closure stuff). When foo() is executed,
> the anon sub is cloned, and at that time, $anon:x is s
Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
> Any word from on high whether subroutine signatures will apply to methods in
> Perl6? There's RFC128 and RFC97... but they both mostly dodge the issue of
> methods.
>
> The absense of method signatures for specifying required, optional, and
> named parameters... not to
10 matches
Mail list logo
