2006/8/26, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I noticed that tr/// doesn't currently exist in pugs. I want to add a
test, but I'm not sure where it goes. My first instinct is to create
a new tr.t in operators/, but I could also see adding it to builtins,
or even to the trans test in string. So
2006/8/26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters
Hi,
The opcode file src/ops/dotnet.ops has a very limited subset of .net
conversion opcodes. languages/dotnet/ops/dotnet.ops provides amongst other
opcodes a much more complete set of conversions.
Are there any objections to just remove src/ops/dotnet.ops?
leo
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/Perl6/Spec/Documentation.pod
...is *way* out of date. It predates the meeting Ingy, Larry, Audrey,
and I had in Tokyo, in which most of the kinks were ironed out. I have
a new draft of S26 with the design team at the moment, and am close to
having a first cut
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v) or
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters from pairs.
Alternatively, reserve either :k(v) or
