[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... this seemed reasonable, but it
doesn't help:
.sub _foo
.local int x
x = 5
.namespace ANON
.local int x
x = 3
print x
.endnamespace ANON
print x
.end
All untested features are b0rken.
I got namespace now running, above snippet be
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:01:21PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It is OK for an undef value to be true, though. That's not only
> allowable, it has to be allowed. For perl, at least, it's how Larry
> plans on getting around the "function returns undef, but it's a real
> undef value, not a false
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> > How would you do something like:
> >
> > (@foo,@bar,@zap) := classify { /foo/ ;; /bar/ ;; /zap/ } @source;
>
> Since I don't understand what that's supposed to do, I probably *wouldn't*
> do something like it. What effect are you trying t
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := classify { /foo/ ;; /bar/ ;; /zap/ } @source;
A shorthand ... that "classifies" (or "parts") @source according to
> the results of a series of tests, not just one.
You mean, like:
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part { when /foo/ {0}; when /bar/ {1}; when
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := classify { /foo/ ;; /bar/ ;; /zap/ } @source;
A shorthand for:
for @source {
given {
when /foo/ { push @foo, $_ }
when /bar/ { push @bar, $_ }
when /zap/ { push @zap, $_ }
}
}
How about just
(@foo,@bar,@
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 01:20:26PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Nicholas Clark mused:
>
> >I just had this thought - can I interpolate in there?
> >
> >Something like
> >"\c[$(call_a_func())]"
>
> Why not just:
>
> "$(chr call_a_func()]"
>
> ???
Well, I was wondering if my function returned
Damian Conway wrote:
> or even a arrayed form, when the corresponding index was implicit:
>
> (@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [/foo/, /bar/, /zap/], @source;
That's kinda nifty. But admittedly, it's not to-die-for necessary, if
I'm the only one fond of it.
Ken Fox wrote:
> and implement class
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > or even a arrayed form, when the corresponding index was implicit:
> >
> > (@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [/foo/, /bar/, /zap/], @source;
>
> That's kinda nifty. But admittedly, it's not to-die-for necessary, if
> I'm the only one fond of it.
I think this makes a nice
Ken Fox asked:
How about just
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := classify [ rx/foo/, rx/bar/, rx/zap/ ] @source;
and implement classify as a normal sub?
We could certainly do that. But let's call it C.
Et voilà:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
my &classify := convert_to_sub($classifier);
my
Damian Conway wrote:
Et voilà:
Or, of those who prefer their code sanely formatted:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
my &classify := convert_to_sub($classifier);
my @parts;
for @list -> $nextval {
my $index = try{ classify($nextval) } // next;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > Why does everything have to be built into the first version of Perl 6?
>
> Everything doesn't. Everything shouldn't be. Just the really common,
> important stuff.
>
> I have to confess though, there are *many* times I've wished for
> this particular
> push (/foo/ && @foo ||
> /bar/ && @bar ||
> /zap/ && @zap), $_ for @source;
Presumably, to avoid run time errors, that
would need to be something like:
push (/foo/ && @foo ||
/bar/ && @bar ||
/zap/ && @zap ||
@void), $_ for @source;
> But perhaps...
>
>
Simon Cozens wrote:
A categorise method would be just grand, and I think it should be
shipped with the default Perl 6 array classes, but Perl 6 The Core
Language wouldn't need to know about that particular method if it
didn't want to.
Err. Since arrays are core to Perl 6, how could their method
ralph wrote:
Presumably, to avoid run time errors, that
would need to be something like:
push (/foo/ && @foo ||
/bar/ && @bar ||
/zap/ && @zap ||
@void), $_ for @source;
True.
Why not:
part ( @source, /foo/ => @foo, /bar/ => @bar, /zap/ => @zap );
Because C, C,
Damian Conway wrote:
> (@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [/foo/, /bar/, /zap/], @source;
If we're worried about the distance between the source and destination
when there are many tests, maybe:
part { /foo/ => @foo, /bar/ => @bar, /zap/ => @zap }, @source;
Or, 'long' formatted:
part {
Leo --
Here's the simple bench.jako example (again):
const int N = 100;
var int q = 1;
while (q < N) {
var int i, j, w = 1;
while (w < N) {
i++;
j += i;
w++;
#print("$q, $w\n");
}
q++;
}
I used to work harder in the Jako compiler to track constants
and substitute the
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
If we're worried about the distance between the source and destination
when there are many tests
Are we? I'm not.
maybe:
part { /foo/ => @foo, /bar/ => @bar, /zap/ => @zap }, @source;
Or, 'long' formatted:
part {
/foo/ => @foo,
/bar/ => @bar,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Why not just:
"$(chr call_a_func()]"
???
Well, I was wondering if my function returned "CR", then
"\c[$(call_a_func())]" would mean that the "CR" gets run thought the
\c[...] conversion and a single byte ("\r") is what ends up in the string.
I seriously doubt it. %-)
Ian Remmler decloaked and wrote:
I'm not sure the meaning of the name C would be obvious
> to someone who hadn't seen it before.
What, as opposed to C or C or C or C or
C or C or C or C or C or C
or C or C or C or...? ;-)
I keep thinking C would be nice, or maybe
C. Just a thought...
C i
19 matches
Mail list logo
