Hi!
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:01:19PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> I checked it again, one can download the source code of their service
> from here http://validator.w3.org/source/
> and it is even packaged in some of the linux distros.
>
> (It is of course slightly outdated on Debian)
>
> Someo
Larry Wall writes:
> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:30:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
>
> : We have a very nifty reduce metaoperator. Scans are a counterpart of
> : reduce that are very useful -- they are the (preferably lazy) list
> : of consecutive accumulated reductions up to the final result.
I'm
On 5/9/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But this could just be because I don't (yet) grok scans.
Here's a simple example:
[+] 1,2,3,4,5
would return scalar 1+2+3+4+5 as a reduction and list (0, 1, 1+2,
1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, 1+2+3+4+5) as a scan. (0 comes from [+](), i.e. [+]
with no argument
Markus Laire writes:
> On 5/9/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But this could just be because I don't (yet) grok scans.
>
> Here's a simple example:
>[+] 1,2,3,4,5
> would return scalar 1+2+3+4+5 as a reduction and list (0, 1, 1+2,
> 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, 1+2+3+4+5) as a scan.
That do
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up with an
> : implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
> : the language?
>
> Maybe that's just what reduce operators do in list context.
I lov
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Smylers wrote:
> So I have the list generated by the scan. And? What do I do with it?
> I can't think of any situation in my life where I've been wanting such a
> list.
Scans are useful when the intermediate results are interesting, as well
as when you w
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduce operators do in list c
On 5/9/06, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
> I love this idea and have implemented it in r10246. One question though,
> what should a scan for chained ops do?
>
> list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
> # bool::false?
> # (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::f
HaloO,
Smylers wrote:
But why would a hash be doing equality operations at all?
I think it does so in the abstract. A concrete implementation
might use the .id method to get a hash value directly.
Assuming that
a hash is implemented efficiently, as a hash, then it needs to be able
to map d
Markus Laire wrote:
ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
APL defines it as the later (1).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduc
Is there anyone on the list who's actually used APL and is familiar
with it? (Or wants to learn it. =-)
I could use more comprehensive test suite to insure that it's
actually APL that's being written and nothing some similar, but
entirely unlike APL.
This doesn't require any knowledge of
Larry Wall schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> What would be the way to define-or-set that a specific hash has
>> non-case-sensitive keys?
>
> Use a shaped hash with a key type that defines infix:<===>
> appropriately, since object hashes are based on infix:<===> rather
> than infix:.
Suppose I want the keys
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduc
Will Coleda wrote:
Is there anyone on the list who's actually used APL and is familiar
with it? (Or wants to learn it. =-)
Will, there's a world of people who know APL who barely know that Perl
and esp. the Perl6
project exist! Ergo, I am copying this note to a list of mainframe
programmers
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:07:26PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
> i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
I noticed this in earlier posts and thought it odd that anyone
would want to get an extra zero arg that they didn't spec
Author: larry
Date: Tue May 9 14:06:29 2006
New Revision: 9153
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Reduce in list context.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod(o
Gaal Yahas writes:
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Smylers wrote:
>
> > So I have the list generated by the scan. And? What do I do with
> > it? I can't think of any situation in my life where I've been
> > wanting such a list.
>
> Scans are useful when the intermediate results ar
Mark A. Biggar writes:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Gaal Yahas wrote:
> >
> > > list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
> > > # bool::false?
> > > # (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false, bool::false)
> >
> >(And I'm with Smylers on this one: show me a useful example, please.)
>
On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
KeywordImplicit adverbsBehaviour
regex (none) Ignores whitespace, backtracks
token :ratchetIgnores whitespace, no backtracking
rule :ratchet :words Skips whitespace, no back
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 04:51:17PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> I'm comfortable with the semantic distinction between 'rule' as "thingy
> inside a grammar" and 'regex' as "thingy outside a grammar". But, I
> think we can find a better name than 'regex'.
[...]
> Maybe 'match' is a better keywo
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add
this to
: the language?
Mayb
Allison wrote:
I'm comfortable with the semantic distinction between 'rule' as "thingy
inside a grammar" and 'regex' as "thingy outside a grammar". But, I
think we can find a better name than 'regex'. The problem is both the
'regex' vs. 'regexp' battle,
Is that really an issue? I've never met
Austin Hastings wrote:
I'm thinking that APL is dead for a reason. And that every language
designer in the world has had a chance to pick over its dessicated
bones: all the good stuff has been stolen already. So while "scans" may
fall out as a potential side-effect of reduce, the real question s
Allison Randal wrote:
> More importantly, whitespace skipping isn't a very significant option in
> grammars in general, so creating two keywords that distinguish between
> skipping and no skipping is linguistically infelicitous. It's like
> creating two different words for "shirts with horizontal s
Smylers wrote:
Mark A. Biggar writes:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
# bool::false?
# (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false, bool::false)
(And I'm with Smylers on this one: show me a useful example, please.)
i noticed a few things missing from the list of sigils. patch inline below.
~jerry
Index: design/syn/S02.pod
===
--- design/syn/S02.pod (revision 9154)
+++ design/syn/S02.pod (working copy)
@@ -494,8 +494,8 @@
$ scalar
@
Author: larry
Date: Tue May 9 21:26:12 2006
New Revision: 9156
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
patch from jerry++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(origi
that's postfix ::, as mentioned in the Names section of S02.
There is no longer any special package hash such as %Foo::. Just
subscript the package object itself as a hash object, the key of which
is the variable name, including any sigil. The package object can be
derived from a type name by us
according to S02, under 'Literals', generalized quotes may now take
adverbs. in that section is the following comment:
[Conjectural: Ordinarily the colon is required on adverbs, but the
"quote" declarator allows you to combine any of the existing adverbial
forms above without an intervening colo
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:15:24PM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
: according to S02, under 'Literals', generalized quotes may now take
: adverbs. in that section is the following comment:
:
:
: [Conjectural: Ordinarily the colon is required on adverbs, but the
: "quote" declarator allows you to combine
31 matches
Mail list logo
