Consider:
my $foo of Num where { 0 <= $^n < 10 };
Is the following also valid?
my $foo where { 0 <= $^n < 10 };
Or does that have to be like this?
my $foo of Scalar where { 0 <= $^n < 10 };
And can $_ be used instead of $^n?
Juerd
Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $S0 = readline $P0
> print $S0
> $S1 = read $P0, 3
Mixing readline and read isn't really a good idea. Did you try to turn
on/off buffering before changing read modes? See PIO.setbuf().
leo
Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The readline opcode returns too many lines. Compare the following pir
> with `wc -l`.
> unless file goto END
> $S0 = readline file
It needs (currently) a test for an empty string:
unless $S0 goto END
I didn't look at the code, if EOF is
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:53:01 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $S0 = readline $P0
> > print $S0
> > $S1 = read $P0, 3
>
> Mixing readline and read isn't really a good idea. Did you try to turn
> on/off buffering before cha
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:49:06 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The readline opcode returns too many lines. Compare the following pir
> > with `wc -l`.
>
> > unless file goto END
> > $S0 = readline file
>
> It needs (curr
Juerd writes:
> Consider:
>
> my $foo of Num where { 0 <= $^n < 10 };
>
> Is the following also valid?
>
> my $foo where { 0 <= $^n < 10 };
I don't see why not. The main place C will be useful is in
multimethods, and I see that as a reasonable shorthand:
multi sub foo(Bar $x, $y w
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-01-28 9:31 (-0700):
> > And can $_ be used instead of $^n?
> Of course it can. You know that.
I do?
Can't say I understand well when a topic is implicitly defined and when
not. It's obvious for for-loops and given, but everything else is
blurry to me.
Juerd
Is there any reason to keep lib/Make.pm around? It was used by
make.pl, but that was deleted more than a year ago. Grepping the
parrot directory returns no occurrences of 'use Make;'.
If it is deleted, #15988 (Make.pl might load the wrong Make.pm) can be closed.
--
matt diephouse
http://matt.die
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-01-28 9:31 (-0700):
> > > And can $_ be used instead of $^n?
> > Of course it can. You know that.
>
> I do?
>
> Can't say I understand well when a topic is implicitly defined and when
> not. It's obvious for for-loops and given, but everything else is
>
At 5:04 PM -0500 1/18/05, Sam Ruby wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Hi folks.
Welcome back!
Parrot's got the interesting, and somewhat unfortunate, requirement
of having to allow all subroutines behave as methods and all
methods behave as subroutines. (This is a perl 5 thing, but we have
to make it wo
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:04 PM -0500 1/18/05, Sam Ruby wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Hi folks.
Welcome back!
Parrot's got the interesting, and somewhat unfortunate, requirement
of having to allow all subroutines behave as methods and all methods
behave as subroutines. (This is a perl 5 thing, but we
Luke Palmer wrote:
Sam Ruby writes:
Mmm, syntax! :) Luckily it makes no difference to us at the parrot
level. What that should translate to is something like:
$P0 = find_method Parrot_string, "find"
# Elided check for failed lookup and fallback to attribute fetch
$P1 = make_bound_method(Pa
Sam Ruby writes:
> >Mmm, syntax! :) Luckily it makes no difference to us at the parrot
> >level. What that should translate to is something like:
> >
> >$P0 = find_method Parrot_string, "find"
> > # Elided check for failed lookup and fallback to attribute fetch
> >$P1 = make_bound_meth
Sam Ruby wrote:
Now, what should the code for function f look like? The only
reasonable answer is something along the lines of:
getattribute $P0, P5, 'find'
I doubt that. All languages have different semantics, and we can't
implement them all, because they are conflicting. You, as a compiler
14 matches
Mail list logo
