Luke Palmer wrote about:
=head1 Perl 6 and Set Theory
This document will introduce a new way of thinking about some Perl 6
constructs. In addition, it proposes some minor changes that would
help this way of thinking be more consistent. These changes may make
Perl 6 a better language in general
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:10:30 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> There are actually four types of junction:
>
> conjunction: all(@elements)
> disjunction: any(@elements)
> abjunction:one(@elements)
> injunction: none(@elements)
Oh yeah...
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Of course, as long as you can call C without explicitly loading
> a module, it's merely a philosophical distinction as to whether
> C is core or not.
Well, no; it's an implementation distinction too. Non-core methods
1) don't mean anything special to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:43 +, Brad Hughes wrote:
> In any case, the choice of default base index is less important for Perl than
> for other languages given how seldom arrays in Perl are accessed by index as
> opposed to manipulated by push, pop, for $x (@array) loops and such.
I slice a lo
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:28:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> We could certainly do that. But let's call it C.
I usually just lurk here, but I just had to pipe in. :) I'm not sure the
meaning of the name C would be obvious to someone who hadn't seen
it before. I keep thinking C would be nice,
Damian Conway wrote:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)? The
array refs in @parts are not flattened though. Is it c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.namespace WHILE_BLOCK
You should make uniq namespace identifiers (WHILE_BLOCK_$w, $w++). The
generated variables (WHILE_BLOCK::i) keep there life[1] after end of the
namespace and might collide e.g. with ".local num i" in the next while
block.
[1]
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I keep thinking C would be nice, or maybe
C. Just a thought...
C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? et
David Wheeler wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> > Ian Remmler decloaked and wrote:
> >
> > > I keep thinking C would be nice ...
> >
> > C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
>
> Ooh, I like C best.
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 10:20 AM, Smylers wrote:
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from C.
Yes, but I would expect to be a compile-time error, since the
signatures are different. The same can't be said for r?index.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
Ken Fox asked:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)?
Yes.
The array refs in @parts are not flattened though
David Wheeler wrote:
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? etc.).
You know, that's *exactly* why I like C better. ;-)
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
Ken Fox asked:
Is it correct
to think of flattening context as a lexical flattening? i.e.
only terms written with @ are flattened and the types of
the terms can be ignored?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
Sometimes array references behave as arrays, e.g.
push
# New Ticket Created by mrnobo1024
# Please include the string: [perl #18967]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18967 >
If -g is not requested, Configure says (none requested) but puts it in the
compiler flags
I've gotten tired of endlessly clicking on tinderbox links to try to
figure out what's generally going wrong, so I made my computer do it
for me. Yes, I should have just made a script that runs on the
tinderbox machine or something instead of parsing Data::Dumper output,
but I didn't want to bother
At 19:55 on 12/08/2002 PST, Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can see the results here: http://foxglove.dnsalias.org/parrot/
I'm getting a 404 on that.
--Josh
[snipped]
> so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
>
> (@foo, @bar) :=
> part [/foo/, /bar/],
> sort { $^b <=> $^a }
> grep { $_ > 0 }
> @data;
>
>
I wo
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:00:40 +0100
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Damian:
> > so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
> >
> > (@foo, @bar) :=
> > part [/foo/, /bar/],
> > sort { $^b <=> $^a }
On Dec-09, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> At 19:55 on 12/08/2002 PST, Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You can see the results here: http://foxglove.dnsalias.org/parrot/
>
> I'm getting a 404 on that.
Well, of course you would! Don't you know anything about the web? You
should have figured o
Note: this is back on-list.
> From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:27:55 -0600
>
> [regarding -> as a left-to-right pipe-like operator]
>
> Please do. As in, please point out on list that
> '->' is already established as a left-to-right
> flow/assignment operator so why not
20 matches
Mail list logo
