Just a quick question: Is Hash keys still Strings, or can they
be arbitary values? If the latter, can Int 2, Num 2.0 and Str "2"
point to different values?
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpy4a1oCQOVh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Autrijus Tang writes:
> Just a quick question: Is Hash keys still Strings, or can they be
> arbitary values?
They can be declared to be arbitrary:
my %hash is shape(Any);
> If the latter, can Int 2, Num 2.0 and Str "2" point to different
> values?
That's an interesting question. Some peo
Luke Palmer writes:
> Autrijus Tang writes:
> > Just a quick question: Is Hash keys still Strings, or can they be
> > arbitary values?
>
> They can be declared to be arbitrary:
>
> my %hash is shape(Any);
>
>
> > If the latter, can Int 2, Num 2.0 and Str "2" point to different
> > values?
Hi,
Luke Palmer luqui.org> writes:
> Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
> > my $x = (a => 42); # $x is a Pair.
> > $x = 13; # Is $x now the Pair (a => 13) or
> > # the Int 13?
>
> You see, in your example, the pair is not "functioning as
> an lvalue". The var
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:20:59 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> Luke Palmer writes:
> > Autrijus Tang writes:
> > > Just a quick question: Is Hash keys still Strings, or can they be
> > > arbitary values?
> >
> > They can be declared to be arbitrary:
> >
> > my %hash is shape(An
I was thinking about scopes (for a problem unrelated to Perl 6), and I
realised that the scoping concepts in P6 are somewhat limited.
We have
my $var # lexical scope
temp $var # lexically-scoped dynamic scope
C is lexically scoped in that its effect goes away at the closing
curly of the le
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:20:59AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I forgot an important concretity. Hashes should compare based on the
> generic "equal" operator, which knows how to compare apples and apples,
> and oranges and oranges, and occasionally a red orange to an apple.
Um. Hashes don't rea
I hunted down the cause of the non-parsing of
ok((2 + 3) == $five, "== (sum on lhs)");
in 03operator.t, but am not yet up to speed in Haskell to fix it.
Below is the location of the problem.
The error is in Parser.hs, in the blocks for parseApply and
parseParamList. parseApply eats parens using
Nigel Sandever writes:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:20:59 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> > I forgot an important concretity. Hashes should compare based on the
> > generic "equal" operator, which knows how to compare apples and apples,
> > and oranges and oranges, and occasionally a r
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: So, I think late binding is a sensible (and practical) default, but
: do you think it may be a good thing to have a type inference mode that
: assign static contexts to expressions, and prebind as much as poss
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> Nigel Sandever writes:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:20:59 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> > > I forgot an important concretity. Hashes should compare based on the
> > > generic "equal" operator, which knows
Alex Burr wrote:
[..] Actually, it would be useful sometimes
to be able to give a hash an explicit canonicalizer:
my %msdos_files is canonicalized_by lc;
my %fractions is canonicalized_by gcd;
Shouldn't that be handled by container subclasses of Hash?
Like PersitentScalar or SparseArray?
Regards,
-
Nigel Sandever writes:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> > As far as getting 2, 2.0, and "2" to hash to the same object, well, we
> > know they're 'equal', so we just need to know how to hash them the same
> > way. In fact, I don't believe 2.0 can be re
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:57:30PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> Alex Burr wrote:
>
> >[..] Actually, it would be useful sometimes
> >to be able to give a hash an explicit canonicalizer:
> >
> >my %msdos_files is canonicalized_by lc;
> >
> >my %fractions is canonicalized_by gcd;
>
> Shouldn't th
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:36:42 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
> Nigel Sandever writes:
>
> When we're talking about hashes of everything, there are a couple of
> routes we can take. We can go Java's way and define a .hash method on
> every object. We can go C++'s way and not hash at
Luke Palmer wrote:
The object model that I'm working on actually identifies 2 and "2" as
the same object, indistinguishable in every respect.
Okay, that's fine, since C< 2 eq "2" > and C< 2 == "2" >. But what about
2.0 and "2.0"?
In Perl5, C< 2.0 == "2.0" >, but C< 2.0 ne "2.0" >.
-- Rod Adams
After a week of work, I'm glad to present Pugs 6.0.9, available
in a CPAN near you seen as Perl6::Pugs; you can also download it
from my home server:
http://autrijus.org/dist/Perl6-Pugs-6.0.9.tar.gz
[Changes for 6.0.9 - February 28, 2005]
* First Perl 6 module: Test.pm.
* First Pugs Apocryph
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd say: .tail_call always does a tail call. The check_tail_call() can
>be dropped then.
>leo
> That takes IMCC out of the loop when it comes to tail-call optimization.
> But IMCC seems like the natural place for doing these low-level
> optimiza
18 matches
Mail list logo
