On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:58:55PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Angel,
> This is the numeric literals part, reformated to follow Michael's
> outline.
My contribution is some copyediting and a few suggestions. Take what
you think is worthwhile.
> --
Greetings all,
Allison has asked me to be the coordinator to make sure that we all
send in our Contributor License Forms. You can read all the license
details at:
http://snipurl.com/bkt
Basically, what it comes down to is that we need everyone to sign a
document saying that, for all the
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> The formulation of coroutines I favour doesn't work like that.
>
> Every time you call a suspended coroutine it resumes from immediately
> after the previous C than suspended it. *And* that C
> returns the new argument list with which it was resumed.
>
> So you can write th
At 1:29 PM +1100 11/17/02, Damian Conway wrote:
The formulation of coroutines I favour doesn't work like that.
Every time you call a suspended coroutine it resumes from immediately
after the previous C than suspended it. *And* that C
returns the new argument list with which it was resumed.
Hrm.
At 12:46 PM +1100 11/17/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski pondered:
What does:
>
$foo = any(Bar::new, Baz::new, Xyzzy::new);
$foo.run;
do?
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C<.run> method on
each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results of
Dave Storrs wrote:
[...] Just as an aside, this gives me an idea: would it be
feasible to allow the base to be specified as an expression instead of
a constant? (I'm pretty sure it would be useful.) For example:
4294967296:1.2.3.4 # working with a really big base, hard to grok
2**32:1.2.3
Dave Storrs writes:
>
> Good point. I volunteered to be keeper of the glossary a while ago,
> but I never actively started creating one. That said, let's make this
> the first entry. Comments and constructive criticisms welcomed from
> all comers.
>
I tryed to "cut in stone" ( but this
chromatic writes:
>I've submitted three bugs for Perl 6 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] They're in
>RT, but they haven't been announced on this group. I believe Allison
>has asked Ask to look into this.
Well, since I'm the RT owner, you and she should have asked me, or
even better, the bugs6-admin at perl.
=-
=section assignment vs binding
=-
* A = B ;
"assign" means :
evaluate the *value* on the right hand side and
*distribute* it ( value ) among the containers ( which if
here is ( a liitle bit ) poished version of
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg12393.html
just if somebody want to use it .
I left some of the comments by Damian Conway because when I tryed to (
thought of ) saying it myself , it lost clarity/brevity/intensity .
But
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C<.run>
method on each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results
>> of the calls (which, in the void context is ignored, or maybe
>> optimized away).
I was afraid you'd say that.
Then you shouldn't ha
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
It seems like that would be useful and common enough to write as
sub bar(;$foo is given) {
...
}
Where $foo would then take on the caller's topic unless it was explicitly
passed an argument.
While I can certainly see the utility of that, I believe it is too c
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:39:55 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It would be *vastly* better thought integrate junctive calls with
> the standard threading behaviour.
Of course, there will be a pragma or something to instruct it to
operate serially, yes?
Luke
Luke Palmer asked:
Of course, there will be a pragma or something to instruct it to
operate serially, yes?
I doubt it. Unless there's a pragma to instruct threads to operate
serially.
In any case, I'm not sure what such a pragma would buy you. The
ordering of evaluation would still be inherent
Angel Faus wrote:
I understand that this formulation is more powefull, but one thing I like
about python's way (where a coroutine is just a funny way to generate lazy
arrays) is that it lets you _use_ coroutines without even knowing what they
are about.
Such as when you say:
for $graph.nodes {
Of course, apart from the "call-with-new-args" behaviour, having
Pythonic coroutines isn't noticably less powerful. Given:
sub fibs ($a = 0 is copy, $b = 1 is copy) {
loop {
yield $b;
($a, $b) = ($b, $a+b);
}
}
we still have implicit iteration:
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:28:59 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've a couple of questions here:
> we still have implicit iteration:
>
> for fibs() {
> print "Now $_ rabbits\n";
> }
Really? What if fibs() is a coroutine that returns lists (Fibonacci
lists,
On 15 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Dave Whipp wrote:
> A couple more corner cases:
>
> $a = 1:0; #error? or zero
Shouldn't base-1 be:
1:0 == 10:0
1:1 == 10:1
1:11 == 10:2
1:111 == 10:3
1:1010111 == 10:5
etc..
Also 0:0 == 10:0
--
Markus Laire 'malaire' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 14:53, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> >> So, can we specify floats in other bases?
> >
> > Why would you want to?
>
> Personally I wouldn't. That doesn't mean it's not useful to someone.
FWIW, I occasionally work with floating point in base-2 and base-16.
Not that that should, b
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 14:08, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> > For example:
> >
> > my $x = 18;
> > my $y = -18;
>
> my $z = -256:234.254; # negative number
> my $e = 256:-234.254; # error
Why?
--
Brya
> > My favorite was from ages ago:
> >
> > sub bar(;$foo //= $_) {...}
>
> I think that today that would be written more like this:
>
> sub bar(;$foo) is given($def_foo) {
> $foo = $def_foo unless exists $foo;
> ...
> }
>
> Though we might get away wi
Luke Palmer enquired:
we still have implicit iteration:
for fibs() {
print "Now $_ rabbits\n";
}
Really? What if fibs() is a coroutine that returns lists (Fibonacci
lists, no less), and you just want to iterate over one of them? The
syntax:
for &fibs {
print "
At 7:39 AM +1100 11/18/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Creates a disjunction of three classnames, then calls the C<.run>
method on each, in parallel, and returns a disjunction of the results
of the calls (which, in the void context is ignored, or maybe
optimized away).
I was afr
* Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Nov 2002 12:56]:
[...]
> Perl's standard threading behaviour's going to be
> rather heavyweight, though.
Silly question time: Why is it going to be rather heavyweight?
(Not complaining or berating, just wanting information =) )
> (Though the presentation on
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:01:08PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Dave Whipp wrote:
>
> > A couple more corner cases:
> >
> > $a = 1:0; #error? or zero
>
> Shouldn't base-1 be:
>
> 1:0 == 10:0
> 1:1 == 10:1
> 1:11 == 10:2
> 1:111 == 10:3
> 1:1010111 == 10:5
> etc..
Nope
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:51:05 -0800
> From: Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Therefore, in base 1, you can only use the digit 0. (Actually, I
> think base 1 is a corner case--you only get one digit, but that digit
> is 1, so you can represent any number N by making N tally marks.)
Well, if
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 08:13:58PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:51:05 -0800
> > From: Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Therefore, in base 1, you can only use the digit 0. (Actually, I
> > think base 1 is a corner case--you only get one digit, but that digit
> > is
At 1:00 PM +1100 11/18/02, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote:
* Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Nov 2002 12:56]:
[...]
Perl's standard threading behaviour's going to be
rather heavyweight, though.
Silly question time: Why is it going to be rather heavyweight?
(Not complaining or berating, jus
At 8:22 AM +1100 11/18/02, Damian Conway wrote:
Luke Palmer asked:
Of course, there will be a pragma or something to instruct it to
operate serially, yes?
I doubt it. Unless there's a pragma to instruct threads to operate
serially.
In any case, I'm not sure what such a pragma would buy you. T
29 matches
Mail list logo
